Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Water Supplies

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the water pressure and supply at the de Aston school, Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, is inadequate; that during the last month there has only been one day of continuous flow; and if he will have the matter investigated and give the highest priority for the supply of labour and materials to put it right.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I understand that water pressure has been inadequate in Market Rasen since before the war and that the water company are taking steps to improve it. Any of the measures proposed requiring the prior approval of my right hon. Friend will receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the boys in this school have not been able to play their usual sports because the shower baths cannot work? The whole thing has been hung up for necessary materials. Will the Minister give the necessary priority a push, please?

Mr. Edwards: If a scheme is submitted, it will receive sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether it is a private company that supplies the water?

Mr. Edwards: Not without notice.

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to deal with the resolution from the Chatburn Parish Council on the question of inadequate domestic water supplies to the residents of Chatburn; and if he is aware that this village can only obtain supplies of drinking water after the needs of another village have been met, resulting in no water being available for the residents of Chatburn for periods of 60 hours.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am not aware of the resolution, but I understand that shortages have arisen and that the Clitheroe Rural District Council are doing all they can to remedy matters.

Mr. Randall: If information comes to hand, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the fullest inquiries will be made?

Mr. Edwards: Certainly, Sir.

Health Service (Bargemen, etc.)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Health what provision he is intending to make under the National Health Service Act for the general practitioner care of bargemen, caravan dwellers and other persons who are constantly changing their place of residence.

Mr. J. Edwards: I expect that the provision will be broadly similar to that which now applies to insured persons who frequently change their residence.

Lea Bridge Waterworks (Flooding)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the damage by floods at the Lea Bridge waterworks; what steps were taken to deal with the danger of a contaminated water supply; how many were affected and for how long; and whether danger to health has now been removed and the normal water supply entirely restored.

Mr. J. Edwards: The whole works were out of action. Water supplied from other sources or carted was treated, and the public was advised by broadcasts and other means to boil it before use. The population affected was approximately 1¼ million, but piped supplies were made available within a short time for all but 350,000 of these. A piped supply is now being provided to nearly all the houses in the area, but consumers are advised as


a precautionary measure to boil water used for cooking and drinking until further notice. Thanks are due to all those who gave such speedy and effective help.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that the tanks which took water out sometimes carried water which was fit for drinking purposes, and sometimes it was quite otherwise, and that should be cleared up? Further, have precautions been taken to see that if abnormal flooding recurs it does not again affect the filtering of the water?

Mr. Edwards: I was not aware of the first point, but I will look into it. I think we shall learn such lessons as we can from our experience in this matter.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister state whether he has consulted with the Minister of Fuel and Power to see whether additional fuel can be given?

Mr. Charles Williams: How can they boil water without fuel and electricity?

Aged Persons (Charitable Trusts)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the disclosures in the report of a survey of charitable trusts in Great Britain providing funds for the accommodation, care and comfort of old people, published by the Nuffield Foundation, he proposes to set up an ad hoc committee to complete this inquiry and to make recommendations for the better use of these resources.

Mr. J. Edwards: My right hon. Friend is proposing to discuss this matter with the Charity Commissioners in connection with the proposed National Assistance Bill.

Sir S. Reed: Will the Minister treat this matter as urgent in view of the increase in the expectation of life and the necessity of putting these resources to better use in order to provide amenities for aged and ageing people?

Mr. Edwards: I quite appreciate the importance of the subject

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many old charities—I am chairman of one myself—which operate under old deeds and need very little alteration to bring them up to

date; and will he make the scope of the inquiry as wide as possible?

Mr. Edwards: I would not like to prejudge. The matter is before the Charity Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rate Income

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health how much money was raised in rates in England and Wales last year, and how much is expected to be raised this year owing to increases in rates levied by county and municipal authorities.

Mr. J. Edwards: The estimated rate income for 1945–46 was about £221 million and for the current year, 1946–47, about £239 million. If the hon. Member has in mind the year commencing 1st April, 1947, I am afraid that information will not be available for a considerable time.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this enormous increase in local government expenditure must increase our cost of production, and, therefore, impede or destroy our ability to compete in the markets of the world, and, therefore, vitiate the very policy laid down by the Government in their economic White Paper?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that all the expenditure of local authorities is really necessary.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the ratepayers get better value for their money than they do by any other form of expenditure?

Flood Damage Relief

Mr. Deer: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the hardship caused by the recent flooding in Lincoln; and whether he will arrange for financial assistance through the local authority to alleviate the distress caused by the flooding.

Mr. J. Edwards: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday last.

Mr. Deer: Does my hon. Friend realise that however generous the response to the public appeal may be, there is still


a considerable amount of expenditure which the local authorities have incurred on administrative account during the flooding? Can that additional expenditure be met by considering a further assessment of the block grant?

Mr. Edwards: I am well aware of that point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did promise, in the statement he made on Tuesday this week, to make a further statement next week which, I am sure, will cover the point.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health what instructions have been given to the local authorities whose areas are affected by the floods; and, in particular, whether he has authorised them to open up emergency hostels and rest centres, to arrange for communal meal services, and for emergency transport.

Mr. J. Edwards: The inspectors of the Ministry are in close touch with Public Assistance authorities whose duty it is to relieve distress. The arrangements made by these authorities include the measures referred to by the hon. Member.

Day Nurseries

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Health what has been the saving to date, or the estimated saving for the year, by reducing the 100 per cent grant to municipal authorities in respect to day nurseries.

Mr. J. Edwards: I regret that this information is not available for municipal authorities only. For all welfare authorities it is estimated that the saving in the financial year 1946–47 will be of the order of £1,250,000.

Mr. Allighan: Does the Minister realise that, in order to make this saving, municipal authorities like Gravesend are having to close down their nurseries; and how does he reconcile this with the appeal of the Government for women to go into industry, in which case they must have a place in which to leave their children?

Mr. Edwards: I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that at present local authorities not only have the element of their block grant covering this kind of provision, as before the war, but they have also a special grant to meet this expenditure.

Fair Wages Clause

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if his regulations compel local authorities to include the Fair Wages Clause in any contracts in which a Government grant is involved.

Mr. J. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Is this further evidence of the policy laid down by the Prime Minister before he accepted office, that there should be regional controllers interfering with the independence of local authorities and the setting up, as the Prime Minister said, of regional commissars, on the Russian lines?

Oral Answers to Questions — IDENTITY CARDS

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates the issue of a revised identity card to include particulars of the holder's marriage.

Mr. J. Edwards: No, Sir. This would involve verification of the marital status of the entire adult population and additional administrative machinery to keep the information on the identity card up to date.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this suggestion would make bigamy less prevalent and would obviate much hardship to many innocent people?

Mr. Edwards: I am aware of that, but legislation would first be required, and the administrative machinery would, I think, be quite impossible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Mining Areas

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health if he will publish a list of the mining areas to which prefabricated houses have been allocated over and above their normal allocation; the numbers allocated to each; and the dates by which it is expected that the houses will be completed.

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to provide additional housing accommodation in mining districts; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. J. Edwards: A substantial house building programme is already in operation in mining areas. A number of these areas have been selected by the National Coal Board as areas of special need. All possible methods of increasing the amount of accommodation in these areas, including the provision of additional prefabricated houses, are being examined at conferences with the local authorities for the areas. As soon as these conferences have been completed my right hon. Friend will make a further statement.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Parliamentary Secretary state whether local authorities are building four times as many houses as are private companies and individuals, and are they restricting building by private people to that rate?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that arises on this Question.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Would the Minister say whether the mining areas are the only ones to which special consideration is being given, or would he be able to give similar information in respect of areas vital to food production, if I put a Question to him?

Mr. Edwards: That supplementary question raises an entirely different point.

District Nurses

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the importance to the community of an efficient service of district nurse mid-wives, particularly in rural areas, and of the housing shortage, he will issue instructions to local authorities that, where no suitable house already exists, a house for the use of the district nurse midwife should be built in an area from which she can most conveniently carry out her duties.

Mr. J. Edwards: Local housing authorities have already been asked in a circular dated 8th May, 1946, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy, to make a special effort to assist midwives and district nurses to obtain suitable accommodation.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it realised by the Department that this is a matter of immense importance to rural districts, almost equal to the provision of water supplies and sanitation?

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the Circular which I

am sending him, he will see that as far back as 8th May, 1946, we realised the importance of this point.

Building Blocks

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the manufacture of building blocks from china clay waste; and whether, in view of the importance of china clay for export, he proposes to make any special arrangements for housing the additional workers required by this industry.

Mr. J. Edwards: China clay waste is used in the manufacture of concrete blocks in Cornwall and South Devon. Ninety per cent. of the 1,250,000 square yards of block produced annually in that area is made from this material. In reply to the second part of the Question, I am not aware that any special housing provision is required for additional workers in the china clay industry.

Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that production could be increased and additional houses built, and that it would relieve the necessity for importing other bricks with the result that it would assist the building programme generally?

Mr. Edwards: If my hon. Friend will send me details, I will gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the calamitous position which this industry is in through lack of fuel, and will he press the Minister of Fuel and Power and the President of the Board of Trade on this point?

1947 Programme

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health whether the 1947 targets of 240,000 permanent and 60,000 temporary houses have been broken down to the various regions; if he will state the allocations of these targets to the different regions; and, in making these allocations for London, whether consideration was given to the character of London's housing problem in view of the amount of bombing that London received.

Mr. J. Edwards: As regards the first parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 25 of the White Paper on the Housing Programme for 1947. The answer to the last part is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give the information to the House through the OFFICIAL REPORT and, in the course of giving it, could he say what was the basis upon which the figures for London were provided, because they are about one-seventh of the total? Is he satisfied that that corresponds to the London population and London's needs?

Mr. Edwards: In reply to the first part of the supplementary, it is quite impossible to give the detailed local distribution of the programme until we have all the returns, which will not be until towards the end of April. In regard to the second part, I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that in London, very particularly, a substantial proportion of the labour force is employed on the repair of war damaged dwellings.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister say whether any real importance any longer attaches to the total target figure of 240,000 houses?

Norfolk

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Health what has been the result of his Department's review of the house-building programmes of the various local authorities in Norfolk; and if he will indicate the reasons advanced by Ministry officials for reducing the number of houses to be built this year.

Mr. J. Edwards: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish this information for Norfolk and the rest of the country with the housing return for March. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 22 of the White Paper on the Housing Programme for 1947 and the circular to local authorities on the subject—of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Gooch: In the cutting down of any housing programmes, will the Minister give due regard to the programmes of rural authorities who want to build solely for the accommodation of farmworkers?

Mr. Edwards: That fact is taken into account in all the zonal conferences.

Zonal Conferences

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Health whether he will explain the purpose of the zonal confer-

ences now being held on housing; and why the Press and local builders are excluded from these meetings.

Mr. J. Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 23 of the White Paper on the Housing Programme for 1947. The conferences are informal and the figures discussed are provisional. A statement is usually issued to the Press when a conference is concluded. The local figures, when agreed, will be presented to Parliament in the monthly housing return and will be made available simultaneously to the Press.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fact that the Press and local builders are excluded from these conferences in some areas, is leading to fears that what is intended here is not to obtain local information as to housing conditions and advice from local builders, but to ensure that local authorities do not deviate in any degree from the policy of the Government? If this policy is good, is there any need to withstand publicity?

Mr. Edwards: There are no grounds for such a fear. The conference is one of local authorities and not a conference of builders.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Smith.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: The other Mr. Smith.

Mr. Charles Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the figures which emerge from these conferences are agreed and not imposed?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: This Mr. Smith—[Laughter.]

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister assure the House that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to exclude the Press from important conferences?

Mr. Edwards: These conferences are not conferences of the kind where one would normally expect the Press to be present. They are essentially committee discussions of a highly involved, detailed and intricate character. The findings of such committee discussions will be made public.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as the Eastern area is concerned, in the notification given to local authorities of the conference an order was made telling the local authorities that they must delegate powers to the representatives attending the conference and that those delegates must have the full authority to vote? Is this not a gross overriding of the right of delegation of local authorities?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think so. If we want to call representatives to concert action, we must allow them to take action.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Correspondence Delay

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Education what are the reasons for the delay in dealing with the correspondence from Mr. Ellingham, 4, Brookside, Orpington, Kent, particulars of which have been sent him.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlin-son): I have explained the circumstances to the hon. Member in correspondence. The delay which I regret, was largely due to the difficulty of obtaining a full account of the contribution collected by the local education authority.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that any ordinary business delaying correspondence like this would be "broke" in a fortnight, and that the delay in dealing with correspondence is making this Government bankrupt? Indeed it is bankrupt now.

Leaving Age

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Education whether, having regard to the present inadequacy of school buildings and shortage of teaching staffs, and to the urgent need of recruits for industry, he will consider the possibility of permitting children who, at 1st April, 1947, will be more than 14 years of age to leave school if their parents so desire; and whether he will permit this concession to remain in force until such time as more buildings and more teachers become available and the need of industry for recruits is less urgent.

Mr. Tomlinson: This would involve an alteration of the existing law and I do not propose to make any such change.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Ought not the parents to have some say in a matter of this kind? What benefit will accrue to children who are attending overtime in overcrowded and understaffed schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think that assumption will be borne out. In any case, parents' rights have always been restricted with regard to the age at which children should leave school

Universities (Increased State Scholarships)

Mr. Corlett: asked the Minister of Education whether he is now in a position to indicate his policy in regard to State scholarships and other awards in 1947 for the purpose of enabling students to follow university careers.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to increase the number of State scholarships in 1947 from a maximum of 360 to a maximum of 750. Steps will be taken to ensure that the increased number of awards are distributed fairly among the universities and university colleges. At the same time scholarships to a maximum of 100 will be offered to enable suitable students from establishments of further education, particularly those following part-time courses, to enter on full-time university courses. There will also be scholarships up to a maximum of 20 available to enable students of mature age who have shown special ability to follow a university course. Details of the procedure to be followed in regard to all these awards have been worked out with the co-operation of the universities and are being announced today. I rely on local education authorities to maintain and, where necessary, extend their present provision of major awards, and on this basis the new arrangements will materially extend the opportunities for university education.

Mr. Corlett: While I thank the Minister for his welcome reply, may I ask if he could give the cost of this?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give the exact cost, but it will be in the neighbourhood of £300,000.

Mr. Hastings: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any of these scholarships apply to the training of doctors and dentists?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, as they always have done.

Mr. Skinnard: In the case of the welcome provision for students of mature age, is it contemplated that maintenance allowance will be given to the wives?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, and families where families are involved.

Courts of Justice (Visits)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Education whether visits by schoolboys to courts of justice are part of the educational curriculum in civics laid down by his Department; and what steps he has taken to see that consideration is given to the suitability of the cases to be heard.

Mr. Tomlinson: Details of the school curriculum are primarily a matter for the school authorities. I should, however, regard such visits as generally unsuitable for pupils under the age of 16 and even for pupils over that age consideration would need to be given to the suitability of the case to be heard.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the very sordid murder trial in Winchester six local schoolboys were accommodated on the Judge's bench?

Mr. Tomlinson: That was without my authority and is something over which I have no jurisdiction.

Essex

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education what further progress has been made toward securing adequate accommodation for the school population in Essex during 1948 and thereafter; to what extent huts will be provided and are to be made available to the Essex Education Committee; and what is the estimated in crease of school population in Essex for 1948 compared with 1946.

Mr. Tomlinson: Accommodation under the scheme for raising the school-leaving age will provide 244 class or practical rooms. In addition to this and other temporary hut accommodation, instalments of three new schools are in course of erection, plans of nine others have been approved, and plans of two more are being considered by the Ministry. The primary and secondary school population in Essex totalled 171,780 in January, 1946, and is expected to rise to about 187,000 by September, 1948, as a result

of changes in the birthrate and in the school age. Housing developments will cause a further rise, and an instalment of the additional school accommodation needed on this account has been included in the authority's immediate building programme.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that despite the earlier part of his answer, the Essex education authority is extremely perturbed? Has he not been able in some measure to allay their fears and overcome their difficulties?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think so, and I am anxious that the perturbation should find expression in acceleration.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the special difficulties of accommodation in the next year or two, would my right hon. Friend ask the education committee to consider modifying or delaying their rather drastic policy of closing down and concentrating small village schools, except where such schools are grossly obsolete and insanitary?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think any school will be, closed down until extra provision has been made to accommodate the children.

Junior Technical Schools

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education what is the policy of his Department with regard to junior technical schools under the Education Act, 1944, and the forthcoming raising of the school age; and what will be the duration of the courses and the age of entry.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would ask the hon. Member to await publication of the Ministry's forthcoming pamphlet on "The New Secondary Education," which will deal with the points he has in mind.

Special Responsibility Allowances

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education in how many areas allowances for posts of special responsibility have not been paid; and whether the West Riding of Yorkshire is one of such areas.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware of the number of areas where these allowances have not actually been paid by local education authorities. My agreement to the general arrangements for such payments in 1945–46 to teachers in primary and secondary schools has been notified


to all authorities except 15. Yorkshire (West Riding) is not one of the exceptions but I have reason to believe that this authority has not yet made the payments. Definite information relating to technical colleges will not be available until local education authorities have submitted certificates relating to teachers' salaries for the year 1945–46.

Mr. Lindsay: Could the right hon. Gentleman do something to speed up these remaining areas? It is two years since the Burnham scale award. There will be another one soon.

Mr. Tomlinson: We have prodded them on several occasions, and maybe this will be a further prod.

Students' Earnings

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement about the deductions made from the vacation earnings of students who are in receipt of Government grants.

Mr. Tomlinson: This matter, which concerns other Departments as well as my own, is under consideration, but it is not yet possible to make a statement in the matter.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to hurry up this statement? He said he would three or four weeks ago, and the Prime Minister gave a sympathetic reply, and the Easter vacation has now started

Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware of the necessity for speeding this up, and I ought to be in a position to make a statement immediately after Easter.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the gross hardship this imposes on those who have to pay their board and lodging during the vacation, and when they have earned something to pay for it, they have to hand 50 per cent. to the Minister of Education?

Mr. Tomlinson: It was because I realised that there was a hardship that I promised to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES (POLITICAL AGENTS)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Attorney-General if he will inform the House in detail why a justice of the peace has to

resign on being appointed a full-time political agent.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am informed by my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, that it has been the settled practice of successive Lord Chancellors of all political parties to refuse, knowingly at any rate, to appoint as justices, in the area of their activities, whole-time paid political agents, on the ground that in practice their appointment to the Bench was undesirable and might cause great embarrassment if they had to adjudicate in the case of either a prominent supporter or opponent, and that in accordance with the same general principles a justice on being appointed a whole-time paid political agent should resign from the Commission. I may add that it is understood that the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace have this question under consideration, and pending the publication of the Commission's report the Lord Chancellor does not propose to make any change in his practice in the matter.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend this question in view of the Lord Chancellor's allegation that political agents are unlikely to be impartial when sitting in a judicial capacity: is it not a fact that the Lord Chancellor is head of the British Judiciary, but is he not also a member of the Cabinet, and how dare he suggest that he might himself be impartial whereas people in lower walks of life cannot be impartial?

Mr. E. P. Smith: Does the answer mean that political agents are in fact in the same position as publicans and sinners?

Mr. James Hudson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this argument against political agents would not apply equally to Members of Parliament?

The Attorney-General: As I indicated in my answer, the Lord Chancellor does not propose to alter the existing practice, which has been the practice of successive Chancellors over a very long period of years, until the matter has received the consideration of the Royal Commission which has been appointed to consider this amongst other matters.

Mr. Bowles: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I propose with your permission, Sir to raise this on the Adjournment next Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL TRUST (FENCED LAND, SUSSEX)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Attorney-General whether he will now make a statement about the allegation that the National Trust committed a breach of trust at Crowlink Farm, near the Seven Sisters, Sussex.

The Attorney-General: The investigations into this matter have now been completed and after considering the information in my possession, I have come to the conclusion that no action on my part is called for.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask, in view of the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates the other day, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would confirm that, even though it might be his duty to take action if the National Trust did commit a breach of trust, the Government do not control the National Trust?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I agree; that is the position.

Mr. Marlowe: Although that may be a strictly legal interpretation of the position, is it not a fact that it was a condition of the gift of this land that it should be left open to the public but that it is now enclosed; and does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the intention of the donor should be carried out for the benefit of the public?

The Attorney-General: The information which I have shows that there is really no substantial interference with the rights of access by the public. Fences have been put up in the course of good husbandry, as appears to be necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the Downs, but there are gates, and members of the public are free to go through.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I give notice that, as this question affects my constituency, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise it on the Adjournment?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL JURIES (PROPOSED ABOLITION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Attorney-General whether a decision has yet been made to abolish special juries.

The Attorney-General: The Government have now decided that in principle, with the exception of the City of London special jury in commercial causes, special juries should be abolished. I cannot, however, promise when legislation will be introduced for this purpose.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that, whatever may be the theoretical advantages or disadvantages of special juries, they have in fact afforded a convenient method of doing justice in cases which could not otherwise be so well tried? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least undertake that no legislation will be introduced until something as good is put in their place?

The Attorney-General: I cannot agree with the assumption of the hon. Gentleman. This survival of the fifteenth century has long since outlived its utility. The Government are fully satisfied that the common jury, whose competence to try criminal cases even of the gravest kind is not in doubt, is at least equally capable of trying civil matters.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the Government's decision will be treated by the populace at large as having been inspired by the unsatisfactory result of a particular trial with which they disagreed?

The Attorney-General: The suggestion is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. He gives me the opportunity of saying that my noble Friend and I had this matter under active consideration from the middle of last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Import Licence Restrictions

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will relax the restrictions on import licences, which prevent new firms from developing activities overseas.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the issue of import licences to new importers. In those cases in which goods can be imported under an open general licence, there is no limitation and the goods can be imported by anyone. When goods can be


imported only under individual licence, the grant of licences to new importers must depend, in general, on the total value of such goods we can afford to import.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: When considering this matter, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the privileged case of the ex-Serviceman who is looked upon as a new importer although he is experienced in that business and wants to start business "on his own"? Would he consider relaxing restrictions on account of such ex-Servicemen?

Sir S. Cripps: I have to bear all these matters in mind, of course, but one must not be unfair to the old importers.

Lost Clothing Coupons

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many clothing coupon books were issued in 1946 to replace those said to be lost or stolen; how many were subsequently recovered; and what precautions are taken to ensure that books which have been replaced are not used.

Sir S. Cripps: The number of civilian clothing books issued during the 12 months ending 27th December, 1946, to replace those lost by individual holders was 421,815. In addition, approximately 60,000 were replaced by means of coupon vouchers. About 30,000 were subsequently returned. Apart from these books, which were returned voluntarily, it is not possible to ensure that books which have been replaced are not used.

Mr. Mathers: While not desirous of establishing a large new criminal class, may I ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that some steps should be taken to ascertain where there is real delinquency involved in these big numbers, and take some preventive steps?

Sir S. Cripps: Such steps are already taken. It is only in cases where there is loss by burglary and fire that the replacement is automatic.

Paper Mills (Coal)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider increasing the amount of coal allocated to paper mills who are finding difficulty in maintaining even their present low output of paper.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware of the difficulties which many paper mills are now experiencing in view of the present level of their coal supplies. The allocations to paper mills will be kept under review in the light of the supply situation.

Milk Bottles

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent a shortage of milk bottles arising because of the curtailment of deliveries of soda ash to the bottle manufacturers.

Sir S. Cripps: I have asked the glass container manufacturers to concentrate so far as possible on the production of milk and other priority bottles, and I am glad to say that, despite the shortage of soda ash, the output of these bottles has so far been maintained at a fairly steady rate, although supply has not caught up with the increased demand. I hope that the manufacturers will be able to maintain this rate at the expense, if necessary, of the output of bottles of lesser importance, but I would like to stress, in addition, the urgent need for consumers to handle these bottles with care and return them as soon as possible.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that unless some urgent action is taken to make more soda ash available soon, the supply of bottles will fall off fairly soon?

Sir S. Cripps: I appreciate the difficulty about soda ash, and we have it well in mind.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Would it not be possible to provide that full milk bottles will only be exchanged for empty bottles?

Sir S. Cripps: It might be possible to make that provision, but it might also be very inconvenient.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is it not a tact that certain of the large bottle manufacturers have had to close down because of the shortage of soda ash? And does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, unless these bottles are forthcoming, the milk retailers will have to go back to unhygienic methods of distributing milk without bottles?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any such factories closing down; in fact, the average rate of production has gone up since the end of last year.

Mr. Spence: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring the attention of the Minister of Food to the supply position of milk bottles, to see whether something could not be done to avoid the wastage that is going on?

Weekly Newspapers (Paper)

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Newsprint Supply Company's Rationing Committee has decided not to restore pre-crisis paging to the large provincial newspapers, although this concession has been granted to the national and provincial daily and evening papers; and, in view of this discrimination, if he will take steps to ensure that the supply company accord equality of treatment for all newspapers.

Mr. Thomas Brooks: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will remove the cuts recently made in the size of local weekly newspapers on account of the fuel crisis, since a similar restriction has been lifted from the daily and evening newspapers and the weekly newspapers are read by a large public for their local news.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on 24th March to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). The basis on which newspapers are rationed has been revised in order to simplify the position and remove certain anomalies which existed.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this desire to remove anomalies has created fresh anomalies whereby the pre-crisis cuts which have been restored to the large daily national and provincial newspapers and some of the smaller weekly newspapers at higher prices have been denied to the larger weekly newspapers, with consequent extreme inconvenience to agriculture and farmers and contrary to strict justice? Will he please have a look at it again?

Sir S. Cripps: I have examined this matter with Lord Layton, and the position is that certain preferential treatment which some of the papers enjoyed before has been taken from them to make it more uniform over all the papers.

Mr. Benn Levy: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the use of the local weekly newspaper is different from,

and as important as, national newspapers?. Is not this really discrimination against them?

Sir S. Cripps: Provincial newspapers are now getting a much higher proportion of their prewar amount than other national newspapers.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a tact that the reason why there is no newsprint available and there is a scarcity in this country is due to the Government's refusal to allow money to be spent in buying from the large amount of newsprint which is available elsewhere in the world?

Sir S. Cripps: The question here is not the amount available but the proportion available.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What is the position of those excellent local papers which appear two or three times a week and which on present allocations seem to have fallen between two stools?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot say in these precise cases, because I am not aware what the position is.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it just to draw a parallel between the national newspaper and the small local paper appearing once a week which derives most of its revenue from advertising and consequently is obliged to shut out most of its local news if it is to survive at all?

Sir S. Cripps: Obviously different considerations apply to them and that is why they get a different supply of paper.

Mr. Collins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Industrial Coal Supplies

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an estimate of the increased output of coal which would be required to run our industries to their full capacity where labour, plant and raw materials are available.

Sir S. Cripps: As I explained when opening the Debate on the Economic Situation on 10th March, we are at present planning the distribution of coal supplies during the six summer months on the basis of an estimated total output of 89,000,000 tons during that period. We estimate that


an average increase of about 10 per cent, above that figure should enable us to achieve full industrial production.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will estimate the approximate percentage of capacity of manufacturing industries which is being lost, due to the shortage of coal.

Sir S. Cripps: The effect of the coal shortage varies substantially between industries and between different firms in the same industry. I am afraid therefore that it is not possible to give any estimate of the extent to which industry as a whole is working to less than capacity.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that it would be economic to purchase coal or oil at almost any price rather than that industry should run on short time?

Sir S. Cripps: It is the policy of the Government to import any coal they can and turn over as much plant as possible to burning fuel oil.

Agricultural Machinery

Brigadier Peto: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the demand for more tractors and other farm machinery to be allocated to the home market; and whether, in view of the necessity of speeding up home production, he is prepared to cut exports to meet this demand during the next six months.

Mr. Lambert: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the arrears in spring cultivation and the shortage of both agricultural machinery and spare parts, he will prohibit the export of agricultural machinery until the end of April.

Sir S. Cripps: I have already agreed to arrangements which are being made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to meet the exceptional needs arising out of the present emergency. Leading manufacturers of agricultural machinery in shortest supply are giving the greatest assistance possible to the home market by diversions from export up to the end of April.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it a fact that we are now exporting twice as many agricultural tractors as we did during 1938, especially last year when the need at home was so great?

Sir S. Cripps: I would require notice of that question.

Cotton Industry

Mr. Randall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the short coal supplies to the cotton industry are interfering with the minimum clothing needs of the nation and what urgent steps are to be taken to deal with the position and avoid the danger of the present inadequate numbers of workers in the industry being seriously depleted.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that during the last two months there has been a serious loss of output in the cotton industry owing to fuel shortage. As I informed the hon. Member for Royton, in answer to a similar question on the 20th March, coal allocations to the cotton industry are being kept under constant review in the light of the supply situation and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall do our best to arrange an increase just as soon as possible.

Waste Paper Collection

Mr. John Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the collection of waste paper has fallen by half since 1942.

Sir S. Cripps: The decline in waste paper collection has been due principally to the non-recurring nature of wartime collections of books and records, to labour and transport difficulties of local authorities and in some degree to public apathy. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on 24th March an inter-Departmental Committee has been set up to consider what steps can be taken to improve collections.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there will be a substantial increase in the waste paper collection when the 600 Socialist newspapers get going?

Geneva Conference (British Delegates)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the British delegates to the forthcoming United Nations Conference on trade and employment.

Sir S. Cripps: I myself propose to lead the United Kingdom delegation at the


forthcoming second session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment at Geneva and to be present at the opening meeting on 10th April. The Secretary for Overseas Trade will also be a member of the delegation and will be present on that occasion. He will be at Geneva when the presence of a Minister is required. I hope to be present myself for discussions of major importance.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars about the composition of the delegation, which includes, in addition to representatives of various Departments, representatives of Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia, Burma, Ceylon and the Colonial Dependencies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will representatives of the Association of Empire Traders be welcomed as observers?

Sir S. Cripps: An arrangement is being made with the trading community which will be more convenient, I think. A committee will be in continual session in London and they will have information passed to them from Geneva.

Mr. Assheton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have some mercy on the shorthand writers?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Following are the particulars:

United Kingdom Delegation to Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment.

Delegates:

The President of the Board of Trade,
Secretary for Overseas Trade,
Mr. J. R. C. Helmore, Second Secretary, Board of Trade,
Mr. S. L. Holmes, Under-Secretary, Board of Trade,
Mr. R. J. Shackle, Adviser on Commercial Policy, Board of Trade,
Sir Gerard Clauson, Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office.

Additional Delegates:

The Hon. R. M. L. James, Commissioner for Finance, Newfoundland,
Mr. K. M. Goodenough, High Commissioner in the United Kingdom for Southern Rhodesia,

A Representative of the Government of Burma,
Mr. G. C. S. Corea, Ceylon Government Representative in London, and representatives of the following United Kingdom Departments:

Treasury,
Board of Trade,
Customs and Excise,
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
Ministry of Supply,
Ministry of Food,
Cabinet Offices.

The delegation will also have as advisers other representatives, of the territories mentioned above and of the Colonial Dependencies, together with representatives of a number of United Kingdom Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC PROBLEMS (PUBLICITY)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider commissioning small teams of Members of Parliament to give factory and other talks in the industrial areas of the country, with a view to explaining in simple language the problems associated with the nation's recovery.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I certainly hope that Members of all parties will take every opportunity of explaining these problems in factory talks, and in their speeches. I think, however, that Members would prefer to make their own arrangements for addressing audiences on the nation's economic problems, whether in their own constituencies, or elsewhere. The Central Office of Information can supply Members with the material necessary for such speeches if they so desire. The Central Office of Information is in addition providing speakers to give explanatory talks to factory and other interested audiences.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider issuing to all Members of the House, in order that they will have adequate material, the speech made two years ago by the Minister of Food telling the workers not to work harder after the war, or the bosses would reap the profits?

Mr. David Jones: Would the Prime Minister consider publishing such speeches


as those made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in order that the public may see what is being said?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the recent statement on manpower and economic resources is not fully understood by a section of the population, whether he will publish a further edition of the statement with simplified language and effective diagrams.

The Prime Minister: A plan of regular publicity to spread the knowledge contained in the Economic Survey is now in preparation, and will include other more effective means than the publication of further pamphlets. If, in the light of our experience, it appears that further pamphlets can be helpful, the matter will be reconsidered.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that a large section of the population prefer newspapers or weekly journals to talks and diagrams, it would not be well to follow that example and have different editions of the White Paper published to different sections of the community?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Staggered Holidays

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the announced restriction of summer services upon the railways, if he will refer to his Staggered Holidays Committee the question of workpeople and managements arranging holidays this summer from mid-week to mid-week and hotels and boarding-house establishments to arrange mid-week to mid0-week bookings in order that travel congestion might be reduced to a minimum.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This question has already been discussed with members of the committee from time to time, but such arrangements could not be enforced, and I do not think that any practical purpose would be served by asking the Standing Committee to consider the point further now. People have to a great extent already planned their holiday dates for 1947.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year there was considerable congestion on the railways during

the holiday period and in view of the reduction by 10 per cent, this year, unless something of this nature is established, congestion on the railways this summer will be appalling? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again, because it is very serious and needs reconsideration?

Mr. Isaacs: On the other hand, one has to bear in mind what confusion would arise for industrial establishments if there was to be a break in the middle of the week for some, and at the end of the week for others. After consideration, we do not think such a scheme would be practicable.

Foreign Domestic Workers

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will announce any removal of restrictions on the employment of foreign domestic servants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): It has recently been decided that the issue of permits in respect of foreign domestic workers for private households shall no longer be subject to restrictions based on the type of household, and the number of staff already employed.

Mr. Keeling: Good.

Italian Foundry Workers

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many Italians are now employed in iron foundries in this country under the scheme announced by him on 15th October, 1946.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No Italian foundry workers have yet arrived in this country, but 220 have been selected for employment, and arrangements for their journey are now being made by the Italian authorities.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour announced the scheme as long ago as last October, can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the delay?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir, I think it is fairly obvious. We have no control over the Italian Government and differences have arisen in Italy, not here.

Mr. Vane: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there have been any objections received from trade unions


as to employment of these Italians in this country?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The importation of foundry workers was agreed before the announcement.

Mr. Vane: If I give the hon. Gentleman particulars of a case where there was an objection, will he change his opinion?

Poles

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Poles actually in employment in this country at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret that precise information is not available as to the numbers of Poles who have from time to time entered the country as civilians. The number of ex-members of the Polish Armed Forces in employment here is approximately 7,000. The number of Poles engaged on camp maintenance, Polish administration, Service Department work, and on loan to civilian work, is 57,200.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that less than 10 per cent of the members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are as yet employed in productive industry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, it does not mean that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figure of the number of Poles now at work in the mines?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not the exact figures of those who have entered training for work in the mines, but as individual civilians none is in the mines; they are going through the programme of training, and the programme of training was laid down by the Government.

Earl Winterton: In view of the desperate need for labour in the agricultural industry, has the hon. Gentleman's Department made any effort to acquaint the farming industry and the National Farmers' Union with the number of Poles available?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir, every step is taken to draw the attention of farmers to this reservoir which has good agricultural experience. We have established

exchanges in Polish camps to try to speed up the contacts between farmers and Poles.

Foreign Labour (Conditions)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour the conditions as to employment imposed by him on foreign labour imported into this country under the schemes announced by his Department; and the sanctions which he intends to employ in the event of any breach of these conditions.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Foreigners entering this country for purposes of employment are landed under conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which, in effect, require that they should take approved employment and should not change to other employment without the consent of our Department. In the event of a breach of these conditions, the foreigner can be prosecuted for an offence under the Aliens Order. 1920, and can, if necessary, be deported or, in the case of displaced persons, returned to the British zones.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what happens in the case of a man whose country of origin is not prepared to take him back?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If he has come here as a displaced person, he is taken back to our zone.

Watch Repairers

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the short age of skilled labour for repairing watches, clocks and spectacles; and whether, in view of the fact that such repairs can be carried out rapidly in France, Switzerland and other European countries, arrangements will be made to import a certain number of craftsmen to carry out this work in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and 'training schemes are in operation for the purpose of meeting this position. Meantime, any applications received from employers for permission to employ foreign workers will be considered subject to the usual safeguards.

Short Time

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an estimate of the number engaged in industry


who are working three-day and four-day weeks; and the number who are employed below three days a week.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that I have not sufficient information on which to base an estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Pound Sterling (Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what negotiations have been commenced to re-value Australian and New Zealand £'s. and to put them on parity with English £'s; and if he has any statement to make.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): None, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: Does that short answer mean that the purchasing power of the Australian and New Zealand £ has depreciated by 50 per cent, the same as in this country since 1938?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am answering the Question on the paper, and the answer is "None, Sir."

Fuel Economisers (Purchase Tax)

Mr. York: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Purchase Tax on fuel economy appliances other than fire bricks was reimposed by officers of the Customs and Excise on 29th January, 1947.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The exemption from Purchase Tax provided by the Finance Act, 1946, for firebricks, and similar articles designed for use as fuel economisers, is still in force. If the hon. Member has in mind a decision given by the Customs and Excise about a particular fuel economy appliance, and will send me particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. York: In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary's Department has in hand one of these cases, will he say that in view of the present fuel situation we can do away with the strictly legalistic interpretation of that piece of legislation?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The particular appliance which I think the hon. Member has in mind does not come within the ambit of the Order which exempts certain fire appliances. It is a matter which we might perhaps discuss when we come to the Budget.

Mr. York: But it did before January, 1947.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: In view of the fact that electric cooking and washing machines are not now being used, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to re-impose the Purchase Tax on them?

Closed Bonded Warehouse

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the additional information, forwarded to him on 15th March by the hon. Member for Colchester, about the inconvenience which will be caused to Messrs. Wotton and Attwood, Colchester, by the closing of one of their bonded warehouses; and whether, in view of the small saving of official manpower which will result from closing this warehouse, he will instruct the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to reconsider their decision.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir" and to the second part "No, Sir," but I am writing to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Smith: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the saving of official manpower in this case is 186 hours per year, that that saving is effected at the expense of considerable inconvenience, and is he not aware that such decisions are merely very ridiculous?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the contrary, this is a domestic matter between the hon. Member's constituents and the Customs and Excise. As this firm has two small bonded warehouses but has only work for one, it seems right and proper during the present shortage of manpower to close one.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY ORDERS (POWERS)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will identify the powers included in the expression "all other powers enabling," contained in the Regulation of Payments (General) Order, S.R. & O., 1947, No. 343; why these powers were not specified in the Order; and if he will instruct Departments in future to specify such powers in the explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. I regret that I have nothing to add to the general explanations which I gave on 18th March last.

Sir J. Mellor: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to identify the powers, does it mean that there are no powers, and that the expression referred to in the Question is completely meaningless?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not necessarily; it may well be, or, on the other hand, it may not. As I tried to explain to the hon. baronet the other day, this is common form, and is put into Orders in order to attract any subordinate powers which may be there, and at some time might be necessary.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider circulating his answer in another Government White Paper?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. baronet has given notice that he is going to raise this on the Adjournment, and perhaps that will be a suitable time to discuss it.

Sir J. Mellor: I said I propose to move a Prayer to annul the Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Laceby

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that coal supplies to Laceby, near Grimsby, are unsatisfactory, as indicated by the correspondence sent to him; and if he will consider permitting householders to change their suppliers when distributive businesses change hands.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I am not aware of any special shortages in Laceby which, I am informed, has received more than its full programmed allocation since 1st November. With regard to the second part of the Question, consumers are allowed to choose a new supplier if the business of their licensed merchant is transferred to another owner.

Mr. Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the source of information again, because this village has had no coal at all for the first two months of it is year, as the local man has gone out of business and the other man who has taken over will not meet the needs?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is misinformed. The depot at Laceby has received during the 20 weeks ending 15th March, 24,962 tons of coal against an allocation of 24,800.

Mr. Osborne: It does not say it has been delivered.

Mr. Shinwell: It has been delivered to Laceby.

Flooded Areas

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will arrange for a special allocation of coal to those whose homes have been flooded to enable the houses and contents to be dried out quickly to save unnecessary deterioration and loss; and if he will give special instructions to coal dealers for an immediate allocation in view of the fact that many people have had their coal washed away by the floods.

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will take steps to ensure that people whose houses are saturated by the floods have sufficient fuel to dry them out, and thus prevent further injury to the health of the people living in such houses.

Mr. Deer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will arrange for additional supplies of coal, &c., to the distressed people in the flooded areas, in order that the homes may be made habitable and dry as soon as the flood-water subsides.

Mr. Shinwell: Local fuel overseers are already empowered to authorise extra coal supplies to meet cases of hardship, and to give instructions for priority of delivery. They will use these powers to assist persons whose homes have been flooded.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that many of these homes are now housing two families where before they housed only one, and will he see that they are not forgotten?

Mr. Shinwell: We shall do all we can to help these people.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEAT UTILISATION

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: asked Minister of Fuel and Power whether, with a view to increasing the nation's fuel supply, he will consider schemes for converting peat into carbon for smelting and for general heat and power requirements.

Mr. Shinwell: The possibility of extending the use of raw and processed peat as


a substitute for other forms of fuel is at present being carefully investigated by my Department in conjunction with the Fuel Research Organisation of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. This work embraces not only a general investigation into the carbonisation and briquette-ting of peat but also an examination of the suitability of the raw and processed material as fuels for industrial and other purposes. My Department is also keeping in touch with the latest foreign developments in the utilisation of peat.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House the Business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I should like to say first that I gathered last week that there was some apprehension with regard to the National Service Bill, which is to be taken next week. Having regard to the feelings of hon. Members, I came to the conclusion that two days ought to be given to the Second Reading, on the understanding that the other Business which it is essential that we should get, will be completed by Wednesday evening. The Business for next week will, therefore, be as follows:
Monday, 31st March—Second Reading of the National Service Bill and consideration of Lords Amendments to the Civic Restaurants Bill.
Tuesday, 1st April—Conclusion of the Debate on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill and Committee stage of the Money Resolution, and Committee and remaining stages of the Trafalgar Estates Bill.
Wednesday, 2nd April—Report and Third Reading of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill.
On Thursday, 3rd April, it is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. Questions will be taken until 12 noon and then there will be the Motion for the Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 15th April.
During the week we shall ask the House to consider the Motion relating to the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order, and it may be convenient for me to inform the House at this point, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his

Budget on the day we resume Tuesday, 15th April.

Mr. Eden: While we on this side of the House are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has given to our representations about the length of time allowed for considering the question of compulsory service, may I ask him, for the convenience of the House, to tell us whether the intention is to take the Division on the Bill, should there be one, at 10 o'clock on Tuesday, or is it intended to sit late?

Mr. Greenwood: I have made a concession. I really did not think that this Bill needed two days, people's minds being made up about it. I imagine that the Division might conveniently take place at 10 o'clock on Tuesday night.

Captain John Crowder: Arising out of a question which I asked last Thursday, could the Lord Privy Seal say whether the Prime Minister intends to make a statement about domestic fuel cuts; and in any case could he arrange to allow the use of electricity between 9 a.m. and 12 noon and 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Sundays, when the factories are not working, as this would be a considerable help to the housewife?

Mr. Greenwood: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement later.

Mr. Clement Davies: With regard to the Business on Monday and Tuesday, would it be convenient for me to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had an opportunity of looking at the Amendments which have been put down and for us to know now which you propose to select, if either?

Mr. Speaker: I have not given the matter much consideration yet, but so far as my consideration has gone I propose to take the direct Amendment, which is the simple one, to substitute "this day six months."

Mr. James Hudson: Does the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal envisage the possibility of any extension of time in connection with Monday's Business in view of the fact that on that day, in addition to the National Service Bill, he is putting down another very contentious Bill which is coming back from another place?

Mr. Greenwood: I was nursing the delusion that the Amendment coming from another place would be generally accepted by the House and I should have thought, in the circumstances, that we might finish at the normal time.

Mr. J. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman nursed a similar delusion on an earlier occasion. I then pressed him for extra time which he thought was not necessary but he found by experience that it was, and in view of that will he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. Greenwood: I should be very unwise if I did not take the precaution of suspending the Rule on Monday to make sure of getting that Bill.

Sir Arnold Gridley: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your notice a difficulty which confronts many hon. Members in carrying on their duty of discharging the Business of this House? There are certain Standing Committees sitting at the moment and a number of hon. Members have to attend more than one. Their difficulty is that when proceedings on a Tuesday finish at 1 o'clock there is no HANSARD report available until the following Thursday morning when the Vote Office opens. The result of that is that many of us who are quite unable to attend throughout the whole of the proceedings of more than one Committee, have no opportunity to bring ourselves up to date with regard to the discussions that have taken place. I have been asked on behalf of hon. Members who are very seriously inconvenienced in discharging their duties to ascertain from you whether it is not possible that HANSARD reports of proceedings of Standing Committees—if we are to continue to have so many Standing Committees—shall be available in time to enable hon. Members to study them.

Mr. Speaker: If I had known that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise this matter, I could have considered the report which I received yesterday from the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports. I am sorry, because they have gone into the matter most thoroughly and have reported that these reporters are simply not available and that the thing cannot be done. Although I sympathise with hon. Members, quite frankly the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT and myself are at our wits' end to deal with this problem.

Mr. Eden: I do not think that anyone in any quarter of the House would wish to make any reflection on the reporters who have an extremely hard time to keep up with the work. But may I say to the acting Leader of the House that this is just another example of the position which arises when the Government try to force legislation through at this inordinate pace. In view of this, would he not consider whether he should not adjust the programme so that the House is not compelled to work under this heavy pressure, bearing in mind that the Government will have a heavy responsibility for the consequences of legislation passed in this fashion?

Mr. Greenwood: I hope that after Easter the position will be eased, but I would point out that there is a tendency on the part of hon. Members in Standing Committees to talk a little too long—[Interruption.]

Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House to explain that last extraordinary statement? It is not a question of how long people talk, but of having reports available of what has been said. Surely, while making every sympathetic excuse for those responsible technically, the Government should assist the House to have that ordinary facility which has lasted us through the centuries?

Mr. Greenwood: I have already said that I think that the situation will be eased after Easter, and that is the best that we can do in the circumstances. There will not be many more meetings before the Recess.

Earl Winterton: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that some very interesting evidence was given before the Committee on Procedure about the question of reporting in this House. Is it really the attitude of the Government that the authorities of this House cannot produce sufficient reporters to have a report issued within 48 hours? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a reflection upon the competence of the manner in which the report is carried on—not on the individual reporters, but on the Department responsible?

Mr. Greenwood: So far as I know, every possible step has been taken to obtain reporters, but there is an immense shortage of manpower in that service as in others.

Mr. Edward Evans: May I ask the acting Leader of the House when it is proposed to introduce the legislation promised by the Prime Minister on 27th January with regard to coast protection?

Mr. Greenwood: I remember my right hon. Friend's statement on 27th January, but there was no undertaking to introduce legislation this Session and I think it is quite clear that we shall not be able to do it now. The matter has been somewhat complicated by the unfortunate illness of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health but from our point of view the problem has been actively followed up, and if the hon. Gentleman will ask me again about it later, I may be able to give him a more satisfactory answer.

Commander Noble: As we understand that a statement is about to be made on domestic fuel cuts, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that I was asked to withdraw my Question on the subject yesterday, why I was not given an opportunity to ask it again today?

The Prime Minister: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member. There is no intention of any discourtesy. I think the intention was that he should be asked to put the Question again, and I hope he will have an opportunity of putting it when I make the statement.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Is it proposed to give time for a Debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay?

Mr. Greenwood: If my hon. Friend will put that question to the Leader of the House after Easter, we may be able to give some undertaking about it.

Mr. Nicholson: May I revert for a moment to the question of the reporters? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the reporters in this House are not only being grossly overworked, but dangerously overworked? I have heard it said that many are working 60 hours a week. I do not think their health will stand it, and we may be faced with a serious crisis.

Mr. Bowles: At what time will the House rise on Thursday? Will it be at 5 o'clock?

Mr. Greenwood: As most of us know, the House can sit until 5 o'clock.

Mr. Collins: In view of the widespread anxiety on the subject of the sterling I balances, when is it hoped that time will f be found for a discussion on this question?

Mr. Greenwood: I wish hon. Members would deal with next week's Business. There are many occasions on which this 3 other matter can be raised.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I revert, not to the question of the reporters, but to the printing of HANSARD? In the case of a two-day Debate, those taking part in the second day naturally want to study, in full, the speeches made the day before, but HANSARD is unable to print after 10.30 p.m. or 11 o'clock. This does not involve the reporters at all. May I suggest that this is an example of impotence which is not a credit to the House, and that something should be done right away to alter the situation?

Mr. Speaker: We have been into that, and I am afraid it is a question of the staff at the Stationery Office, and they cannot turn HANSARD out any earlier.

Mr. Eden: I am sure the whole House feels it is unsatisfactory that we should not continue to have the facilities we have always enjoyed. Is it because the reporters are not available, or the money offered is not enough, or that they are already working too long, or what is it? Is there any way the Government can assist the House to get out of this intolerable position?

Mr. Speaker: I could have given some sort of answer if I had known this matter was going to be raised. I have received the Report of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports but I am afraid I have not got it here. My impression is that it is mainly a question of the shortage of reporters, and there is the difficulty in getting HANSARD printed. I think some of the reporting of Committees is done by an outside firm, and there again there is a shortage of reporters in outside firms. Coming back to the I question of printing, I quite agree it is a serious matter, and if only I could do something, I would.

Mr. Eden: Would it be convenient if I raised the matter on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be glad to look at this matter between now and Monday.

Earl Winterton: Can we have it made clear who is the authority responsible, and to whom any criticisms should be addressed? Is it the Government, the Lord Chamberlain's Department, or your Department, Mr. Speaker? It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. No one seems to know which is the Department responsible. Has the House any chance of criticising whoever is responsible?

Mr. Speaker: The House has a chance of criticising, because there is a Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports. They issue a report, and that Report is brought before the House. I have no doubt that this Report, which has been received, will be before the House very shortly.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On Tuesday next, the National Service Bill is being discussed, which is a matter of immense importance to everyone. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to implement the undertaking given by the Lord President of the Council, that when important matters are down to be discussed at the same time in the House and in a Committee upstairs, one or other should be adjourned? In this case, it is the Committees which should adjourn. It would not only implement the promise which was given, but would help the reporting staff as well.

Mr. Greenwood: There may be one or two Committees affected next Tuesday—I do not know. It is not a matter within my competence. I should have thought that those who are on the Committees might by discussion among themselves agree to an Adjournment, which would permit Members to attend an important Debate in the House. I cannot implement that promise myself.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Leader of the House whether His Majesty's Government intend to allow time for discussing the Motion, standing in my name and that of 70 Members of this House representing all shades of political opinion:
[That this House cannot but recognise the recent widespread flooding especially in the Fens as a national disaster and urges His Majesty's Government to treat it as such.]
If time is to be allowed, is it the intention that a discussion is to take place as soon as possible after the Easter Recess?

Mr. Greenwood: I assume that we shall be working pretty heavily after Easter. If the hon. and gallant Member will put the question next week, I might be clearer then what will be the Business when we resume.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I should like to press the Leader of the House in regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). When this procedure of sending so many Bills to Committees upstairs was introduced, the Sessional Order passed in November laid it down that the House would have two days' notice of adjournment, so that Committees could be properly manned upstairs. That was held out as an indication of how the procedure would work. The Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman is meeting next Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons, and so, I believe, is the Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill. As there will be not so many Committees after Easter, this is the occasion, I think, when the rule might be used.

Mr. Greenwood: That is going to be very difficult, in view of the time table. I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposals which might be made. I am very anxious that Members should not be deprived of an opportunity to attend big Debates in the House in which they are interested.

CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER (STAFF)

The Prime Minister: I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement about the constitution and functions of the Inter-departmental Planning Staff, and the appointment of a Chief Planning Officer. The primary task of the Interdepartmental Planning Staff under the supervision of the Chief Planning Officer will be to develop the long-term plan for the use of the country's manpower and resources. They will also follow through the implications of the survey set out in the White Paper, keeping in touch with all Departments so as to correlate their action under the plan. The approach must essentially be a practical one. Both sides of industry will be kept in contact with the progress of the planning, through the Planning Board which His Majesty's Government intend to establish.
The Chief Planning Officer will work directly under the Lord President and will have access to all Ministers concerned with production matters. I should like here to make plain the scope and nature of the responsibilities of the Chief Planning Officer and the extent of the contribution which planning can make to the solution of our economic difficulties. All decisions on planning policy will be made by the Cabinet and not by the Chief Planning Officer. Responsibility for these decisions must, of course, reside wholly with Ministers. Further, it would of course be a mistake to assume that the present difficulties of under-production can be solved by planning alone. The function of planning is to enable decisions to be reached as to the best allocation of available manpower, materials, services and manufacturing capacity. Planning is in itself no substitute for the increased effort and efficiency which are essential to our national prosperity.
I am glad to announce that Sir Edwin Plowden, who served during the war as Chief Executive in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, has agreed to accept the appointment as Chief Planning Officer on this understanding. I am also glad to announce that Sir Robert Sinclair has agreed to act as industrial consultant to Sir Edwin Plowden in the initial stages. Although he will not be able to give more than part of his time to the work, his experience as chief executive at the Ministry of Production during the war will in this way be available to Sir Edwin Plowden.

FUEL EMERGENCY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

The Prime Minister: I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a further statement on the fuel position.
The House will be aware, from the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his speech in the Debate on the Economic Survey for 1947, that during the coming summer the country will continue to be faced with a grave shortage of coal. Total requirements for consumption during the six months 1st May to 31st October, 1947, are estimated at 92,000,000 tons. To this must be added a figure of 10,000,000 tons required to rebuild stocks by 1st November to 15,000,000 tons, making a total requirement of 102,000,000

tons. From this can be deducted some 2,000,000 tons, representing a saving which it is hoped to achieve as a result of the coal-oil conversion programme.
The Government are pressing ahead with all possible measures designed to increase production. First priority has been given to the production of mining machinery, and steps are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to ensure that it is made effective. The recruitment campaign is being intensified, and is meeting with an excellent response. Training facilities are being expanded. At the same time, the National Coal Board, with the co-operation of the miners' leaders, is taking all possible steps to secure increased output per man-year.
The Government are confident that these measures will lead to a steady increase in the output of coal. They can, however, only bear fruit gradually; and, the Government do not consider that it would be prudent, in preparing plans for the immediate future, to count firmly on a production during the six summer months of the amount required. The deficiency may amount to as much as 10,000,000 tons. Railway passenger services, this summer, will be reduced by 10 per cent., as compared with last summer, and in this way a saving of 250,000 tons of coal will be effected. Such measures as are possible for reducing still further the export of coal from this country, whether for the bunkering of ships or for other purposes, will be taken. And, should it prove possible to import coal into this country without unfairness to our friends in Europe, this will be done. But, whatever we may be able to achieve in these directions, there will still remain a very serious gap and, if industry is left to bear the burden of the whole of this gap, the damage to our economy will be very serious indeed.
In these circumstances, it is the view of the Government that domestic and non-industrial consumers, as their contribution towards closing the gap, must aim at saving 2,500,000 tons of coal during the coming summer. The only certain way of securing a saving of this order would be to introduce a scheme for rationing domestic and non-industrial consumption of electricity and gas. During the recent weeks, therefore, the Government have had under examination a number of alternative rationing schemes. They have found,


however, that all these schemes would be both very complicated and difficult to enforce, and even so, inequitable in their incidence as between one household and another. Moreover, they all suffer from the grave disadvantage that large additional staffs would be required to work them.
The Government have, therefore, decided that other methods should be adopted. They propose to apply restrictions on the use of gas and electricity for heating rooms in residential premises during the summer. They also propose, with some variation, to maintain the existing prohibition on the use of electricity for cooking and water-heating during certain hours each day, and to extend this to gas. The details of these restrictions will be announced shortly. The Government further propose to publish, in the near future, certain targets which will show each individual householder and each non-industrial establishment the scale of the total savings which they will be expected to make during the summer, both by the restrictions to which I have referred and by other, voluntary, savings. The Government expect that, when they know the full facts, all concerned will do their utmost to achieve their target. The Government intend, however, to keep under constant review the extent of the savings secured by these means. Should they prove to be insufficient, then other measures, however drastic, will have to be taken to ensure that the target is achieved.

Mr. Eden: I am sure that the Prime Minister will realise that the important statement he has just made is one that we should have an early opportunity of debating. I tried to follow it as best I could, but it was not easy to do so, as it was of an intricate character. But as I understood the Prime Minister, I thought he said that the Government were contemplating the possible purchase of coal from abroad.

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Mr. Eden: The Prime Minister confirms that, and, that being so, I do not see how he can reconcile that with the somewhat derisory attitude which the Minister of Fuel and Power adopted towards this matter.

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend said anything

derisory. I believe that he said that the matter was under review, which does not sound very much like derision. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are pursuing, with the utmost intensity, the question of getting more coal.

Major Peter Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the domestic consumer, during the last six years, has suffered greater cuts than any other consumer in the country? Is he not aware that there is coal available in the Ruhr, and will he see that British people get coal first?

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Member knows of the difficulties about allocation of coal from the Ruhr, and also of the demands of France and other countries. In these matters we have to work with other countries. I am well aware of the suffering caused to domestic consumers, but we have to appeal to everyone in this matter, because industrial production is essential to the country.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the decision of the Government not to ration domestic coal and electricity a complete justification of the opposition of the Conservative Party, some years ago, to the Beveridge rationing scheme?

The Prime Minister: As I was a Member of the Government of that day I should not like to discuss domestic details like that.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great confusion, on the part of the public, as to their proper domestic allowance, and also as to their carry-over from one period to the next? In view of that, would he broadcast a simple statement at an early date?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider whether a statement made on the wireless would be useful.

Mr. Beechman: As the cutting down of railway services during the summer will result in a saving of only half a day's output of coal, and as it was almost impossible to get on many holiday trains last year, does the Prime Minister really think that it is worth while doing this injury to the health and happiness—and thus the energy—of our people?

The Prime Minister: It is quite easy to put up that objection to every kind of economy, by saying that it will not fill the gap, and that it will be troublesome, but in this matter one cannot go on political theory. We have to take steps to see that we can get the coal we want. If conditions improve, so much the better.

Mr. Kinley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will cause much uneasiness in the Merseyside area? Following the cuts which have already been made, and which ought to have resulted in large economies in every household, the almost universal complaint is that their bills, for the last quarter, have been considerably higher than they ever were before. They suggest that variation in the supply of electric current is deranging meters, and causing false readings.

The Prime Minister: That is not a question which should be put to me; the matter should first be taken up with the supply undertakings, and then perhaps with the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Assheton: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the letter which appears in "The Times" today from Mr. McCosh?

Mr. Eden: I know that the Prime Minister will agree about the importance of this statement, and I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of that statement, he does not agree that we ought to debate this matter before we go away for Easter? I am not asking for a reply now; but would he consider whether Wednesday's Business might not be changed? The Business at present fixed for that day does not seem to me to be of earth-shaking importance, and that would allow a discussion to take place before the House adjourns.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I think we really must get that Bill before Easter; it has been about for some time now. If it should be that half a day suffices for the discussion of Wednesday's Business, the other half might well be devoted to a Debate, and if that were to prove impossible there will be Thursday which might be used. But I should hate to take Thursday for Government Business because it is a Private Members' day.

Mr. Eden: Will the Leader of the House also bear this in mind—that when we come back, the Business already announced is to be the Budget, which means yet another week during which we cannot discuss this state of affairs? I would really press him, therefore, to try to rearrange the Business as I have suggested.

Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate that point and I will do my best to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman to arrange for the Debate next week, provided we get the other Business which I have already announced.

Mr. Scollan: Could some arrangement be made whereby a microphone could be put on the Box, so that the people at the back may hear what is being said?

Mr. Speaker: The arrangement of the microphones in the House has nothing to do with me. The hon. Member must apply to the Minister of Works.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Nally: By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement with regard to an incident in which I was concerned, which took place in the House yesterday. I should be deeply grateful if you, Sir, would accept my profound apologies for what, as I now see it, was a quite improper reluctance to withdraw quite unreservedly an expression I used in a supplementary question to the Prime Minister following his announcement of the appointments to the Royal Commission on the Press. The phrase to which objection was so widely taken should not have been employed by me, nor should I have hesitated a moment in withdrawing it and apologising to you, Sir, and to the House. Accordingly I ask your permission to emphasise that the words employed by me yesterday should never have been used in the House; I deeply regret that they were used, and I desire again unreservedly to withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House will receive with pleasure the statement the hon. Member has made.

Orders of the Day — DOG RACECOURSE BETTING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 4—(Duration of this Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 13, at the beginning, insert:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section.

4.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think it will be for the convenience of the House that all the Amendments made in another place shall be taken together, and I hope therefore I may be allowed to make a statement covering all of them. During the Committee stage of the Bill last Friday, two Amendments were proposed, one by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) and the other by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam), the aim in each case being to give the Minister and those who have to administer the Measure greater elasticity in the arrangements that could be made. I was not able to accept the Amendments in the form in which they were moved, but towards the end of the proceedings the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) appealed to me to see whether I could not make the Bill more elastic and prevent the hardships which might arise if we tried to apply to the whole of the country conditions which might not be justified in every place. I undertook to consider the possibility of doing that, and in another place certain Amendments were moved by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, which have resulted in these Amendments appearing on the Paper today.
They enable the Secretary of State to have regard to needs, not merely of a licensing area but of part of a licensing area; if in respect of any such area or part of an area it would be desirable, or would not be objectionable having regard to the needs of industrial production, to allow one of these meetings to be held in the middle of the week or to allow it to start

earlier than 1 p.m. on Saturday) the Secretary of State will be empowered to make an Order to enable the appropriate variation to be made. I think that explains the nature of these Amendments. I think it would have been very unwise to have got out of one strait-waistcoat merely to get into another, which might work awkwardly in certain parts of the country. I hope that with these Amendments we shall have secured the freedom of movement that will enable us to avoid any unnecessary curtailment of reasonable enjoyment.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government for introducing these Amendments into the Bill. They will give him a much greater flexibility of adminstration, and he will be enabled to do whatever is necessary to relax the full stringency of the provisions of the Bill in cases where that course may become desirable. I am glad these Amendments are being introduced, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends behind roe who put forward their Amendments, although they had only 48 hours to consider the Bill, which was passed through all its stages in this House in one day.

4.9 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: Does this sanction supersede any authority of the appointed licensing committees, and will the Home Secretary, in taking any decisions with reference to allowing dog racing in any particular area, before doing so consult with the appointed committees who know the complete arrangements in relation to their own particular areas?

4.10 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I would like to ask the Home Secretary one question with regard to the fourth Amendment, which says, "If the Secretary of State is satisfied as respects any particular licensing area…" etc. I would like him to clarify that matter in this respect: Will he consider applications from local authorities, or from, say, a greyhound race track at the seaside, in this matter of mid-week racing? It is not quite clear as to how the Home Secretary would satisfy himself. To put it the other way round, what should the people interested do in order to satisfy the


Home Secretary that they do need midweek racing at, say, Blackpool during the Easter holiday?

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: By leave of the House, I would like to reply to the two questions addressed to me. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), the main effect of the whole Measure is to remove, for the duration of this Measure, the fixing of days and times from the licensing authority. Ordinarily, the only day in future is Saturday, except for the four appointed days, which are usually Bank Holidays in England and Wales. Nothing in these Amendments will restore to the licensing authorities any powers that the Bill takes away from them, but of course in arriving at a decision as to whether racing should be permitted I shall consult all the people who appear likely to be able to give me suitable information, and I imagine that that would include a body like the local licensing authority.
With regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming), I think the persons who will apply will be the promoters of the greyhound racing tracks. I do not have to be assured that the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents want to bet at Blackpool, I have to satisfy myself that, if I give permission for betting to take place at Blackpool or anywhere else, industrial production will not be interfered with.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that I never suggested anything about betting; I said enjoying themselves at Blackpool by going to the race track.

Mr. Ede: Unfortunately, this Bill is concerned only with betting. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituents want to enjoy themselves without betting, I have no say in the matter. It is the fact that this Bill deals with betting, and I do not want to say anything that might appear offensive either to the hon. and gallant Gentleman or to his constituents, but I have to be satisfied that industrial production will not be interfered with, and it may very well be that a seaside resort may be so near a place in which industrial production is carried on that it would be wrong, on the information

that may come to me in itself, to permit greyhound racing to take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The history of fire fighting in this country is very interesting, and I recollect that it was very fully explained to the House by Sir Samuel Hoare, now Lord Templewood, when he moved the Second Reading of a not dissimilar Bill from this in 1938. Therefore, I do not intend to deal very much with the history this afternoon, except with the glorious page in the history of fire fighting that was written during the recent war. I hope that in my remarks I may be able to pay some tribute to, the Fire Service which we are bringing to an end this afternoon by this Bill.
In the early days, fire fighting appears to have been confined either to the individual householder or to the insurance company with whom he had insured, and occasions were not unknown when one insurance company tried to prevent the fire brigade belonging to another from getting to a fire which was occurring on property insured with the second company. Most of us, I imagine, can recall the days when lathering horses were driven very rapidly, attached to a red fire engine with a great deal of brasswork, through the streets to the fire. There was a story at the school to which I went that, in the year before I went there, the art master, hearing the clanging of the fire bells, left the classroom and jumped from the corner of the street on to the fire engine, as he was the engineer of the local fire brigade. The class followed him. Two or three managed to get on to the engine, and the rest, faint but pursuing, reached the scene of the fire. It was the last occasion, I believe, on which there was a general fire call in the whole of the county of Surrey, and I recollect seeing horses being driven most recklessly and furiously by brigades that had come 10, 12 or 15 miles to be able to attend


the fire. It was a "good" fire, in the language of firemen, but the place where it occurred has been restored, and is now the baronial mansion of the first Lord Beaverbrook. I am afraid that any other comments I might make would be outside the scope of the Bill. Then, we had the time when the horses were used by the municipality partly for scavenging duties and partly for fire duties, and I have seen the scavenger unharness his horse, mount it, and proceed at a furious speed to the fire station in order to harness it again.
Until 1938, the only local authority in this country which had the duty to provide a fire brigade, as apart from the power, was the London County Council. In 1938, with th imminent shadow of war over us, the Act of that year was passed, and established 1,668 fire authorities in Great Britain, of whom approximately 1,440 were in England and Wales. A few of the larger brigades, but only a few, trained recruits, but it was very rare for a brigade to provide organised instruction for the officers. In 1937–38, prior to the passing of the 1938 Act, the Auxiliary Fire Service was started, and in a number of areas a Women's Auxiliary Fire Service was commenced; and the training of the huge voluntary forces thus enlisted threw a heavy burden on the small corps of professional firemen, of whom there were fewer than 6,000 in the whole of England and Wales.
During the war, 700 firemen were killed on duty, 7,000 were injured, and in one raid alone on London 90 firemen gave their lives in an attempt to save the City and County of London from the destruction which the enemy sought to inflict. Among the 700 dead were 20 firewomen. I am sure the House would like to pay a tribute to the gallantry of these people who, in comparative obscurity, served the country and their locality to the end. Two George Crosses and 90 George Medals were awarded to members of the National Fire Service. One C.B.E., 27 M.B.E.s, 191 British Empire Medals, and 380 Commendations were also awarded. It became evident, early in the war, that if the fires caused by the enemy were to be effectively fought, there must be a much greater unity of control and power of direction in some central authority than had ever been the case before.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Not too much.

Mr. Ede: After all, Birmingham was saved from some of the worst catastrophes by the fact that people had the right to direct fire brigades to go to Birmingham, and strongly as I support local government, in time of war one had to accept the position that there should be a central authority which could say to a fire force commander that he must leave his area, denuding it of fire-fighting appliances, in order to deal with a catastrophe that had occurred sometimes over 100 miles away. Such places as Plymouth, Southampton, and others, which suffered very heavily indeed, would have suffered much worse but for the power of central direction and control.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council recommended to his colleagues in the Government of the day, and carried through the House, a scheme of nationalisation which became operative on 18th August, 1941. The service became organised on a far more centralised basis than had ever been possible before, and was not merely of assistance in fighting fires, but in rendering other assistance to other services that were engaged in the war effort. I wonder whether it is realised that the caissons that were required for "Mulberry" were in many cases actually floated through the efforts of the National Fire Service. They were launched into rivers from their specially excavated docks, and the National Fire Service had the task of washing away with their water jets the mud bank separating those improvised docks from the river, and thus enabling these great concrete structures to be released and made available for transport.
I want to include in the tribute that I am paying not merely the whole-time members of the fire brigades, but the part-time people who, in their thousands, had undertaken certain duties and, when the war came, nobly and in the most self-sacrificing manner fulfilled those duties. I am sure their whole-time colleagues in the service would desire that they should be included in any gratitude that the House pays to the whole-time men. I hope the lessons we have learned will not be entirely lost. I hope, in the first place, that the magnificent work done by women in control rooms and in similar parts of the service will not be forgotten


now that we have returned to peace, and that we shall not expect those duties to be performed by strong, ablebodied men who, in our present manpower shortage, if they are to be in the Fire Service, ought to be in the active rather than in the passive branch of the service. There is a tendency, I know, among some authorities to think there is no place for women even in the big fire brigades. My own view is that, for example, in the control room, and in looking after the welfare of the firemen when they are at a fire by bringing a mobile canteen along, there is ample room for women in the service.
I do not want to leave this part of the story which I have to tell this afternoon without mentioning by name two very stalwart servants of the State who have left an indelible mark in the history of the country and of the Fire Service through the way they helped in the organisation of the National Fire Service. The first is Sir Aylmer Firebrace, who was formerly the chief of the London County Council Fire Brigade, who became the Chief of the Fire Staff, and whose knowledge of firemen, quite apart from his knowledge of the fire fighting service, enabled him to weld this great force into the magnificent service that it became. He retired at the end of last month, and I am sure that all who have been associated with him in this service will wish him many long and happy years to recall the splendid service he rendered this country. The other is a former civil servant, Sir Arthur Dixon, a man who, inside the Home Office, has rendered great service to two important branches of public work. He is very largely responsible for the standards of the present Police Service. He has left his mark on that, and certainly, when it came to organising the National Fire Service and giving it its appropriate place in the Civil Defence Forces of the country, he brought to that task a loyalty and a tenacity that were beyond all praise. He also has retired. I had the great privilege, at the National Fire Service College, of presenting him with his portrait last year, and I know that he is held in great affection and esteem both by the Police and by the Fire Service of the country.
When this Service was taken over from the local authorities in 1941, a pledge was given in the name of the Government of the day that when the war was over it would be returned to local government.

It is in fulfilment of that pledge that the Bill is being promoted today. [Interruption.] I did not give the pledge. I have only been called upon to fulfil it, and it is quite frequently easier to give pledges than it is to fulfil them. This Bill fulfils the pledge that was given, not merely by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but also by Sir Donald Somervell, who was Home Secretary during the nine weeks' interregnum between the fall of the Coalition Government and the establishment of the present Government. I want, in the first place, to deal with the statements that were made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council when he met the local authorities on 12th May, 1941, in order to ask them to agree to the establishment of the National Fire Service—statements which he repeated in the House during his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill on 20th May, 1941. He said:
It is the very definite intention of the Government that this is a war-time expedient only, produced by war conditions made necessary by a battle, an active fight that is going on day by day. It is certainly my very definite view that after the war the fire-fighting forces should again be a local authority service; that is to say, that they should not be permanently run by the State, but should again become a local authority service. It is only fair that that should be so. The brigades are taken over for a war-time purpose; and I do not think there is any reason why after the war they should not again become a local service, subject to the State then making provision for mobilisation on a national basis in the event of a new emergency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1941; col. 371, c. 1429.]
That was a statement made by my right hon. Friend the present Lord President of the Council, to the local authorities.

Mr. David Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain what body of local authorities it was?

Mr. Ede: I am coming to that. I am approaching this carefully because I know the doubts and hesitations there are—quite unworthily—in the minds of some of my hon. Friends.
On 30th June, 1943, my right hon. Friend was making a statement in this House, and he then said:
Questions have been raised about the future of the N.F.S. after the war. I do not know what that will be. I frankly admit that I gave an absolute promise that the Brigades would go back to local government after the war. I did not say they would go back to the same authorities, but I said they would


go back. I said that sincerely and categorically, and no other decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government. I am bound to say, in all fairness to the Committee—it is not I alone who say it, a good many other observers say it—the experience of the N.F.S. has taught us a great deal, and we must not be unwilling to think again, when we come towards the end of the war, as to what would be right to do in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1943; Vol. 390, c. 1737–8.]
It is quite clear that my right hon. Friend there made it quite plain that he did not regard himself as having given any pledge to return the fire service to the same authorities who had previously had it. And when he met the local authorities to commence the negotiations which have ended with the present Bill, after quoting the remarks he had made to them in 1941, he said:
That statement is categorical and perfectly definite, and I do not quibble about it in any way. I said it and I meant it. My language was careful because I wanted to keep a free hand as to whether the Service went back to the local authorities from which it came, or whether it would go back to different local authorities, and, to be quite frank "—
This is a statement made by my right hon. Friend to a conference of local authorities—
what I bad in my mind was the possibility that it would go back to the counties and county boroughs.
That statement was made in November, 1944, while the country was still at war.
My immediate predecessor in office, Sir Donald Somervell, sent a letter to the local authorities' associations on 28th June, 1945, and this is what he said, on behalf of the Government then in office:
The Government have considered the views on the future of the Fire Service which have been expressed by the representatives of the local authorities, and have authorised me to continue the consultations on the footing that Parliament will not be asked to sanction the retention of the National Fire Service on a permanent footing against the express desire of the local authority associations to have the Service transferred to local authority control. They consider it, however, essential to frame the Service, in matters of organisation, equipment, training, size of units, etc., so as to take advantage of the experience gained during the war in the operation of the Fire Service over wide areas, and to secure the highest possible efficiency on the part of officers and men.
It is quite clear that that did not mean handing back the Fire Service to a fire authority with the resources and capacity of the Borough of Montgomery, where a

penny rate produces £12. It is clear that all who have studied this matter have come to the conclusion that we cannot re-erect 16,000 odd local fire authorities in this country, and the question, therefore, merely arises as to what are the suitable authorities to exercise this power.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What power?

Mr. Ede: At the moment I am merely dealing with the size of the authority.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: My right hon. Friend will agree that in regard to implementing the pledge, the question of power is important?

Mr. Ede: Yes, but let us deal with one thing at a time. My mind is not as subtle as that of my hon. and learned Friend. I find it difficult to keep one subject in my mind at one time. He is apparently able to juggle with at least two.
The Government had to consider whether they would use the present local government bodies, or whether they would establish some new form of local government authority to deal with this question of the Fire Service. I venture to say that it would be quite impossible to justify the creation of an ad hoc fire authority. If one tried to differentiate between one county district council and another, one would inevitably get landed in great difficulties as to where to draw the border line. I have had two Bills before the House, one under the Coalition Government, in which I dealt with education authorities, and another in this Government, where I had to deal with police authorities, and any effort to draw the line creates more anomalies than it solves.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the Police Bill, he attempted to draw the line?

Mr. Ede: Yes, I did attempt to do so, and I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do it. When one says that one attempts to do a thing one does not say that one finds it possible to do it.

Mr. Roberts: My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman attempted to do it in the Bill or in his own mind.

Mr. Ede: Yes, in some of the earlier stages of the Bill. The Bill which appears


on the Table of this House is by no means the first edition of the Measure, as will be known by any one who has had experience of drafting Measures.

Mr. Roberts: I am referring to the Bill which came before the House.

Mr. Ede: No, I do not say it was in that.
There is one other thing with which I want to deal before I come to the provisions of the Bill, and the powers that are conferred on the Secretary of State and the local authorities. No provision has previously been made in a Bill for the giving of a grant, and one thing on which the local authorities had been very keen was to secure a grant. I do not intend to go into the history of the negotiations under former Governments with regard to a grant. All I want to say on that matter is something which was said to me by Alderman Dale, of Stoke-on-Trent, when I said that we were to have counties and county boroughs as the authorities, and that I intended to approach the Treasury with regard to a grant. Alderman Dale said:
Before we depart may I, as one of the representatives of the associations, thank you very much for a free, frank, open and forthright discussion. We welcome you to this office, and hope you will be very tolerant with us. If you persuade the Treasury to change its mind on the grant, yon will be the best Home Secretary we have ever had.
In spite of that, and in spite of the fact that I am the first Home Secretary who has ever managed to get a grant out of the Treasury for this purpose, and have got them 25 per cent., I am afraid that some of these eulogies are not quite as vigorously expressed today as they were when the grant was only in very doubtful prospect. However, there is 25 per cent., and I hope that the local authorities will be able to make good use of it.
I wish now to deal with the structure of the Bill which I am putting before the House. I propose to repeal the whole of the Act of 1938, re-enacting such of it as may be required. I do that, quite frankly, because I dislike legislation by reference, which is sometimes involved where one takes an old Act and makes little refinements, here and there; it is almost impossible for the ordinary Member of the House to follow it, and he is reduced to relying on the guidance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member

for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I, therefore, propose to repeal the Act of 1938, but most of its Sections reappear, suitably adjusted, in this Measure. I shall want regulations to deal with four main categories among the provisions. The first are those provided for in Clause 13, transitional provisions to arrange for a smooth handing over of the National Fire Service to the new local authorities. The second are the provisions for permanent standards of efficiency prescribed in Clause 1, for uniformity of hydrants and hydrant markings provided for in Clause 15 (6), and for standards of training, uniform and equipment set out in Clause 21. The third group consists of those dealing with the conditions of service and pay in Clause 18, procedure and qualifications for appointment in Clause 19, and for pensions in Clause 26. The fourth group consists of regulations to deal with the Exchequer grant, which is provided for in Clause 25.
The regulations under Clauses 1, 15, 19, 21 and 26 must be referred, in the first instance, to the Central Advisory Fire Council, under Clause 18, upon recommendation of, or with reference to, the negotiating machinery provided in that Clause, before I can place the regulations before this House. Regulations as to grant require the consent of the Treasury. The negotiations about the handing over of the National Fire Service to the new authorities are already taking place, and I would like to express my gratitude to the representatives of the associations for the way in which they are co-operating in this matter. All regulations are required, by Clause 35, to be submitted to Parliament. They can be annulled by a negative resolution.
As I have said, the main object of the Bill is to transfer the Fire Service from its present national direction and control to the counties and county boroughs. That is the effect of Clause 4. I hope to bring it into effect on 1st April, 1948. There are certain matters in the Bill where the provisions with regard to Scotland differ from those with regard to England. I will not venture on any exposition of the Scottish Clauses and arrangements. For instance, I understand that 1st April is not regarded in Scotland as an appropriate day on which to commence the new service. They choose 16th May, I understand. I inquired what particular saint's day it was, and I was told that it


was the commencement of the Scots financial year. I pass no comment on it. It only proves how unwise it is for an Englishman ever to ask any questions about procedure under Scottish local government.
It is felt by some authorities—not, I think, by those who have taken the trouble to compare this Measure with the Measure of 1938—that the Secretary of State gets more power under this Bill than he had under the Act of 1938. I am sure that if hon. Members compare what the actual provisions were under the Act of 1938, and then study this Measure, they will find that there is no increase of power given to the Secretary of State except that he can withhold the grant whereas previously he had the power to take over all the powers of a fire authority if he did not like the way they were discharging their duties. Under this Bill, I have placed the Secretary of State under an obligation to consult one or other body, about every step that he takes that may have repercussions on the existence of a fire service or on the conditions of the authorities and of the men and women actually employed in the service. I was hoping that it would be possible for the associations representing the county councils and the county district councils to arrive at some agreed way in which the county district council could either advise or help the county council in the discharge of its duty. I was assured by the people who gaily started on the task of arranging such a provision, that they would be able to do it.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman including non-county boroughs among county district councils?

Mr. Ede: Yes. I still hope that these authorities may be able, by getting together and considering the needs of the Service in modern conditions, to arrive at some arrangement which will enable the county district council to have its appropriate influence on the way in which a fire service is administered, while the Bill is going through. If, during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, I can be assured that any arrangement that they have been able to reach will be workable, I shall be very happy to embody it in the Bill. I make that offer here and now. It has already been made privately to the associations concerned,

and I will endeavour to see that it is implemented if such a scheme can be brought forward.

Mr. Benson: Assuming that the negotiations between the county councils and county district councils take rather longer than the passage of this Bill through the House, does that mean that there is no possibility of embodying such arrangements that might be come to, either by new legislation or by Orders? Could not the Home Secretary take power to put such arrangements into operation, if and when they are agreed upon, instead of having a time limit?

Mr. Ede: These people have been negotiating about this since November, 1944.

Mr. Benson: We are told that when a man is about to be hanged, it partly clarifies his mind.

Mr. Ede: Yes, but I understood that my hon. Friend opposed capital punishment. Nobody is being hanged here. Let us face up to that. These people are not fire authorities at the moment, and I am asked in a time of great manpower shortage to hand this service back from a highly centralised form to a localised form. Having regard to the demands on manpower and the needs of a highly qualified technical service, I cannot hand this service back to 1,660 different local authorities. I am willing to do everything I can to ensure that local feeling shall be given an opportunity of expressing itself. I sincerely hope that, during the passage of this Bill through Parliament, it may be possible for the various associations representing the county councils and county district councils, whether they be the non-county boroughs, urban districts or rural districts, to come to an arrangement that will commend itself. It is not myself who must be satisfied; Parliament must be satisfied.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This is a matter of great importance. It must be my own fault, but I am not at all clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, what he has in mind. Is it contemplated that there may be some arrangement under which the county councils may delegate part of their powers and duties under this Bill to the smaller authorities—the county districts—or has he only in mind some special arrangement for the


representation of these county districts upon the fire committees of the larger authorities?

Mr. Ede: No. I certainly would not contemplate representation of the smaller authority on the fire brigades committee of the larger authority, because that would lead to an unwieldy committee and would put people who had no responsibility for the finances in an executive position. I would not contemplate that, but I do not shut my mind to any other way that will satisfy the two groups of authorities—the county councils and the county district councils. I am willing to consider anything that they would like to bring forward, though I could not contemplate lacing representatives of the non-county boroughs on the fire brigades committees.

Mr. Lipson: If the Minister could indicate what part the non-county boroughs could usefully play, it might help the two bodies to come to some agreement.

Mr. Ede: I am tempted to say something on that which I will not say. What I will say is that I think that they should be members of an advisory committee, to whom the county council would have to have regard in framing a scheme to be submitted to me for consideration for the county as a whole. The advisory committee should continue in existence after the scheme has been framed to watch the working of it, to make recommendations to the county council with regard to improvements that might be effected, and generally to keep the county council informed of the views of the county districts within the county. I suggest that is a way in which the thing could best be done.

Mr. Benson: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind exclude some arrangement similar to that in the Education Act with regard to delegation?

Mr. Ede: Yes, it does.

Mr. Benson: Why?

Mr. Ede: I do not think I ought to be asked to develop a Committee stage argument at this stage of the Bill. I hope I have indicated that my mind is quite reasonably open on this matter and that I am willing to consider any scheme. If the county councils and the county district councils could arrive at a scheme where delegation was possible, I would not mind looking at it. I do not think

that it is a very hopeful line of approach, but that would not shut me off from considering it if they thought it was more hopeful than I do myself.

Mr. Burden: The Minister will remember the bitter experience of the county districts in relation to the Education Act and the various undertakings which were given. Would he indicate that in his view the county councils ought to be more forthcoming in their discussions with the districts in order to get some sort of arrangement?

Mr. Ede: No. I am not going to say that the county councils are the people who are at fault in this matter. It would be very wrong for me to Say at this stage that the recalcitrant party is A and not B. Really, I would ask the House not to expect me to develop a Committee stage detail. I am trying to avoid saying anything that would prejudice these authorities in their mutual approach and in their final approach to me.
Clauses 5 to 11 provide for the combination of two or more fire authorities. The fire authorities have been asking for guidance in this matter so far as England and Wales are concerned. I object to coming before the House—and I would object if I were not the Minister, to a Minister coming before the House—with cut and dried plans ready, and then attempting to get them through under general powers such as there are in these Clauses. I want the initiative for the combination to come from the local authorities themselves in the light of the practical difficulties which they have to face. The supervision of efficiency of the fire services by the Secretary of State is secured by Clauses 1, 2, 12, 20 and 21. These are modelled on the Act of 1938 so adapted as to secure direct access by the fire authorities to the Home Office instead of the interposition of a fire service commission, as was provided in the Act of 1938.
I am assured that this direct approach is preferred by the fire authorities and I have been very glad to be able to include this provision in the Bill. The only other important changes are to add first-aid, salvage, the giving of advice on fire prevention, the restriction of the spread of fires, and facilities for escape, to the functions of the fire authorities. We must get away from the position where a fire authority could stop its appliances on the


boundary of its area, because it had not received a promise from the authority on the other side of a few dots that King Alfred the Great placed on the map. that they would defray the cost that might be incurred if the brigade went across.
In Clause 1 (3) my powers to prescribe the standards of efficiency are re-enacted. They include the safeguard obtained by the fire authorities in 1938 that authorities whose services reach the prescribed standard shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the Act.

Mr. Benn Levy: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Clause 20 had its counterpart in the 1938 Act?

Mr. Ede: I am coming to Clause 20 in due time. I have only got to Clause 2 now.

Mr. Levy: The right hon. Gentleman enumerated those Clauses which had a counterpart in the 1938 Act.

Mr. Ede: I mentioned it because it is among the Clauses which enable me to secure the efficiency of the fire service. That was all I said about it at that stage. Clauses 2 and 12 are re-enacted in sub stance from the 1938 Act. Clause 2 deals with the fire which in its initial stages can be dealt with by the local brigade, but when the fire outgrows that brigade, aid can be obtained more quickly from an adjoining area than from the home area. Clause 12 deals with the case where for reasons of economy or geography it is better to have the fire attended from the beginning by the brigade from the area of the adjoining authority. For both these cases the charge will not depend upon the individual fire but upon the arrangement which has been made in respect of a continuing employment. The conditions of service are dealt with in Clause 18 which carries out a pledge in the announcement I made to the House on 21st March, 1946, that the Measure would deal with conditions of service as well as with efficiency and that there should be substantial uniformity throughout Great Britain—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the provisions of Clause 18 are to be found in the 1938 Act?

Mr. Ede: They are not, because at the time of the 1938 Act we were living under a very different dispensation. This is a provision which establishes a joint industrial council on a national basis to deal with the wages and conditions of service of these people—

Mr. David Jones: rose—

Mr. Ede: Really, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is not the Committee stage of the Bill. I would ask my hon. Friends to realise that on the Second Reading we deal with the general principles in the Measure. I do not want to be lured unduly into interesting details, because I have already spoken far longer than I intended to. If I answer every question on the lines of those which have already been put, it will be 10 o'clock before I have finished.
This Clause establishes negotiating machinery which covers all brigades, and when the decision has been reached and ratified, it will be enforceable on all brigades. There will be a national series of conditions for the fire service which will have to be observed by every authority. The unification of pensions is dealt with in Clauses 26 to 28. There are now several schemes, varying from London, where a maximum pension of two-thirds of the wages can be earned after 28 years' service to those firemen who are under local government superannuation schemes and have to serve 40 years in order to get a similar pension. The difficulties have been further complicated by the National Insurance Act, and Clause 26 enables a scheme to be prepared by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. Again, merely as an indication of what is probable, I would like to say it is contemplated that this scheme will be analogous to the police pensions scheme, but of course during the Committee stage of the Bill any other views can be put forward.
The Exchequer grant is dealt with in Clause 25. Hitherto, the only grant has been one of £10,000 a year paid to the London County Council. The Riverdale Committee in 1936 made a recommendation in regard to this matter. Their recommendation was not very dissimilar from the one that is included in this Bill. Although it was rather more complicated, it worked out in the end to approximately 25 per cent. It was originally intended that this grant should vary as between authority and authority. We have found


it simpler to deal with it on the basis of a flat rate grant, and the necessary adjustments with regard to the riches and poverty of an area will be dealt with in the revision of the block grant.
Water supplies are dealt with in Clauses 14–17, and there is only one important alteration. That imposes a duty on a fire authority to take all reasonable measures to ensure the provision of an adequate water supply. Clause 19 deals with the procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions. We shall endeavour to lay down as far as possible a standard procedure which may differ for various ranks. It is not intended to interfere with individual appointments by the fire authority, except in the case of the chief fire officer whose appointment will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The Regulations have to be framed after consultation with the Advisory Committee.
There is a provision for central purchase in Clause 22 which we hope will enable a greater standardisation of fittings and equipment to be secured. One of the difficulties in the past has been that when more than one brigade has been at a fire, the second brigade to arrive has sometimes had couplings and other equipment which would not fit either the local hydrants or the extensions of the local equipment. In Clause 23 we make provision for training centres. The Act of 1938 provided for the establishment of a college, and we have gained valuable experience in this matter during the war at Saltdean. I hope shortly to be able to transfer the college at Saltdean to other premises. The larger fire authorities may still like to have their own schools for recruits, but I would urge on them the advisability of considering the use of a national college as giving the members of their brigades a wider opportunity for receiving training than they can get in a local college. I hope that they will encourage and assist their officers to attend the college for staff courses which we hope to arrange from time to time.
The Central Advisory Fire Brigades Council was included in the 1938 Act but is now amended by the inclusion on the council of representatives of persons employed in the fire service, and it is my hope that I shall see the organisations that deal with all ranks of the service included on that council. In addi-

tion, the council is empowered in future to act on its own initiative without reference from the Secretary of State. If there is some matter that they think should be considered which they suspect the Secretary of State would rather not be worried with at the moment, despite the fact that they think he should, it will now be within their power to initiate discussions, to send them forward and to bring their views before the Secretary of State.
Inquiries are dealt with in Clause 33. Their scope is extended to enable inquiries to be made into a particular fire. Under the Act of 1938 it was the general efficiency of the service that was at stake. Under this Measure inquiries can be made into a particular fire, and by bringing in appropriate powers under the Local Government Act, 1933, it will be possible to strengthen the position of the persons holding the inquiries. We now come to Clause 20 which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). This is a new Clause, but it flows from the fact that in future the Secretary of State will be responsible for part of the financing of the local fire service. It is, therefore, essential that he should be in a position to ensure not merely that the service is efficient but that it is not extravagant.
I am grateful to the House for having allowed me to make this detailed exposition of the Bill. In some areas prior to the war there was a substantial amount of cover that was unnecessary, having regard to the resources of adjoining authorities. We had a collection of comparatively small boroughs and urban districts in, let us say, a suburban area, where each authority thought it was necessary to have exactly the same appliances as each neighbouring authority, with the result that there was a considerable wastage of equipment and also of manpower in those particular areas. There were, of course, other parts of the country which were very inadequately covered. I hope this Measure will enable us to provide adequate cover for every part of the country, and to restrict extravagant cover in those areas where it may previously have occurred. I sincerely hope that in the passage of this Bill through the House, through the Committee and on the Report stage, I shall have the assistance of all hon. Members who are brought in contact with the Bill so that I can get from their advice


and experience guidance as to the way in which this Measure, which has been carefully thought out in consultation with the authorities and employees in the fire service, can be improved.
I want to thank the representatives of the authorities and of the employees of the fire service for the way in which they have co-operated so far. There is still a not inconsiderable distance to go in reaching complete agreement on some of these issues, but I believe that if we can maintain the spirit which has been shown by all bodies in their approach to this problem so far we shall be able to return this service to local government control in the certainty that in future it will be well administered and adequate to the tasks it has to discharge.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I should like in my opening words to join in the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the gallant men and women of the National Fire Service, many of whom suffered injury or lost their lives in the war. I should also like to join with him in his tribute to those two great public servants, Sir Aylmer Firebrace and Sir Arthur Dixon. I remember that in the first few months when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office there was a dispute as to the efficiency of a particular borough police force, and the Home Office were insisting upon the appointment of some additional 20 constables. The Members of Parliament representing the borough came to me, and suggested that this was unnecessary, and in an interview with Sir Arthur Dixon I suggested that we might compromise on some middle number. Sir Arthur Dixon thereupon gave me a firm, clear and concise description of the duties and responsibilities of the Home Secretary in relation to the efficiency of the police force. I remember a little later remarking to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was the Home Secretary of the day, paraphrasing the words of the Iron Duke, "I do not know what effect Sir Arthur has upon the police authorities, but, by God, he frightens me." He was a great, well-respected and well-loved public servant.
We have many points of criticism on the Clauses of the Bill, and we shall make sub-

stantial complaint of what I regard as the niggardly nature of the Exchequer grant which is being made. At the same time we, on this side of the House, cannot bring ourselves to divide against the first Measure of denationalisation brought in by this or any other Government in this country. Such Measures will no doubt become more frequent as the years go by, but this is a memorable precedent which will give much comfort to those who view with dismay and foreboding the various Government Measures bringing vital services under national ownership and control. Many people doubted whether it was feasible to denationalise a vital service; whether it was possible, as they put it, to unscramble the omelette. Well, here the Government are showing us the way, and this will be valuable pioneer work. I feel that the Government are blazing a memorable trail today.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we are keeping this inside the public service.

Mr. Peake: Well, possibly the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the word "decentralisation" or "localisation" but the word "denationalise" finds its place in Webster's Dictionary, where it is defined as:
To divest or deprive of national character or, rights.
And it is a word which will become of much more general use in the months that lie ahead.
The fire services have a long and fascinating history, and, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, in the year 1938 when the Fire Brigades Bill of that year was going through this House, Lord Templewood, as he now is, gave us a most interesting speech going back into the history of the fire services. For the purposes of this Bill we need to go no further back than that year. Before 1938 the provision of fire services was a voluntary or a permissive Measure sanctioned by a large number of private Acts of Parliament, and one or two general enabling ones. The powers were exercised efficiently by some authorities, inefficiently, or not at all, by many others. No powers at that date, or even now, in this matter are vested in the county councils, and outside the municipalities the principal authority before 1938 was the parish council, and fire fighting was largely an affair of the parish pump.
The Act of 1938 constituted, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, boroughs, and urban and rural districts as the fire authorities and imposed a duty on them to maintain efficient fire services. That Act was to a considerable extent a preparation for war and for the incendiary bomb. It is true that despite protests, which came among others from the present Secretary of State for Scotland, there was no Exchequer grant in 1938, but much valuable equipment for the emergency services was provided by the Exchequer free of charge. The war began before that Act became fully operative. The regional commissioners were established and did much to co-ordinate the fire fighting activities in their regions, but in 1941 it was found necessary, for the purpose of the war, to establish the National Fire Service. Now the financial arrangements made at that time were these; the local authorities were to pay towards the cost of the National Fire Service three-quarters of the peacetime prewar cost of the services. The whole of the remaining burden fell upon the Exchequer. It is worth while noting that, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman now proposes should be done in regard to the division of the burden of cost. As the right hon. Gentleman has told us quite fully, unqualified pledges were given by the Lord President of the Council and others that this should once again become a local authority service after the war.
During the last few months of the Coalition Government there was much discussion as to the future of the fire fighting organisation. Clearly the pledge had to be honoured. At the same time it was recognised generally that the authorities set up by the Act of 1938 were too numerous for really efficient fire fighting under modern conditions of mobile appliances. My own view, which is no doubt on record in the Home Office, was that the organisation for the future should be built round the county borough and the county council and the right hon. Gentleman has, of course, used those bodies as the basis for the new organisation of the Police Force under the Police Act of last year.
There, are however, in my view exceptional cases. There are cases where, in a county sparsely populated, there are one or two important boroughs or urban districts, and one must bear in mind that the county councils have hitherto had no

experience of this form of administration. There are cases, on the other hand, like the West Riding of Yorkshire where the boroughs and the urban districts are extremely numerous and where again, in my view, a more efficient fire fighting organisation could be built up if powers of delegation were granted to county councils under the Bill. I want to ask a question about Clause 12, one of the Clauses to which the Home Secretary did not refer. It seems to contain, on the face of it, certain powers of delegation by fire authorities. Subsection (1) reads:
A fire authority may make arrangements with any other fire authority or other persons—
Those are the important words, "or other persons"—
who maintain a fare brigade, so as to secure by the provision of services by the other fire authority or persons the discharge of all or any of the last-mentioned—
In fact it should be "first-mentioned".
fire authority's functions under this Act in respect of all or any part of its area…
Then there is a proviso:
Provided that no arrangements shall take effect under this subsection unless submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State.
I do not think that Clause intends to make it possible for a fire authority that is as county council to delegate its powers to a non-county borough or to an urban district. I do not think those two latter bodies come within the definition of the words "or other persons who maintain a fire brigade" mentioned in this Clause, but it would indeed be a simple matter for this Clause to be amended in such a way as to confer powers of delegation on county councils where they themselves do not wish to exercise fire fighting powers, and where the only parts of their counties which can afford or which deserve to have measures to fight fires are authorities which already have experience of maintaining fire brigades.

Mr. Ede: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? What does he mean by areas "which deserve to have measures to fight fires"? After all, farmers are sometimes very angry if there is not a fire brigade available to put out a stack fire.

Mr. Peake: I am coming to that, point, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember, if he has studied the Debates on


the Bill of 1938, that a Clause was inserted in that Bill enabling the Secretary of State for Scotland to leave the crofter counties of Scotland clean outside the scope of the Bill, for the reason that as a matter of economy of manpower and finance it was not worth having fire fighting services in those counties. One has in this matter to balance advantage against disadvantage. It is really much cheaper in a rural area to have an occasional rick burned out, or an occasional farm burned down, because, as a rule, these places are not on the telephone and the fire brigade does not arrive in time anyway, than to maintain a large number of men in idleness in case an eventuality occurs. The case I am putting, where power of delegation ought in my view to be operative, is where you have a wide, sparsely populated county with one or two urban centres in it.
It is recognised in the Bill that the needs of localities vary. Urban fires are much more expensive and much more dangerous than rural fires, and it is essential that we should husband our manpower. If hon. Members look at Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, which re-enacts a provision of the 1938 Act, they will see:
The Secretary of State may … make regulations prescribing standards of efficiency … and the standards may vary according to the requirements of, and the facilities available in, different kinds of locality.
It is clearly recognised in the Bill that fire fighting needs vary according to the nature of the area for which they are to be provided.
Now I want to say a word about the finances of the Bill. The estimated cost for England, Scotland and Wales is £13,250,000 a year against a cost of £3,000,000 a year before the war. If 75 per cent. of the present cost is to be borne on the rates, there will be £10 million a year of rate-borne expenditure as the result of the Bill. Before the war, up to the year 1941, of course there was the ordinary peacetime cost estimated at £3,000,000, and from 1941 onwards, under the arrangements made, there was a burden on the local authorities of only 75 per cent. of the prewar cost.
That is somewhere about £2,250.000. So that as a result of this Bill there will be added to the backs of local authorities a burden of between £7 million, and £8 million a year. Why on earth should not

the grant here be 50 per cent., as in the case of the police? There is a division of responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman is taking just as wide powers in respect of fire brigades under this Bill, as he enjoys in respect of police forces under the various Police Acts. He has enormous powers under the Bill, and can not only prescribe standards, but say how many men there are to be in a particular fire brigade, and prescribe every sort of detail. It would be a much fairer division of the heavy burden involved if there were 50 per cent. from the Exchequer and 50 per cent. from the rates.
After all, these fire-fighting services are today part of the national defences against the risk of war. We do not ask that local rates should contribute towards the cost of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. On that ground, the Exchequer ought to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of the fire-fighting services, which are an insurance against the risk of war. We should not have suffered anything like the losses from fire which we suffered in the years 1940 and 1941 had we had an efficient fire service throughout the country in 1939. We must regard part, at any rate, of this expenditure as a defence service, and we ought to treat that in the same way as we treat expenditure on the Navy, Army, or Air Force.

Mr. Ede: This is different; those are national services, entirely under national control.

Mr. Peake: But the right hon. Gentleman makes a grant of 50 per cent. for the police forces. Why on earth should he not do so for fire brigades? There is no answer in logic to the case which I am making. There is another point of importance in relation to the finances of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, by making county councils fire authorities, will make the remote and sparsely populated areas bear the same rate burdens as towns within the county. There is bound to be a standard poundage for the fire rate. There are no provisions in this Bill for differential rating as there have been in the past in respect of water supplies. The rate in the pound will be the same throughout the whole of the local authority area. On the other hand, when the right hon. Gentleman comes to prescribing standards of efficiency, he is bound to decide that standard by reference to the needs of the most densely


populated part of the area. As a result, unless powers of delegation are permitted, injustice must be inflicted on the sparsely populated areas. Even if they have a fire in those areas, the fire brigade seldom arrives in time, because they are not served by telephone. The Act of 1938 specifically gave power to exclude the rural areas of Scotland from the provisions of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to inflict a burden on the rates spread over the county as a whole, when the whole benefit will go to two or three urban areas within the county.

Mr. Burden: Is the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that, under de-rating at any rate, urban areas will be supplying rural districts, and maintaining the whole cost?

Mr. Peake: I was not speaking of agricultural land, but of house property. After all, agricultural land does not very often catch fire.

Mr. Burden: Farms and hayricks do.

Mr. Peake: Once or twice during the war the National Fire Service turned up to put out a heath fire on the Yorkshire moors. In prewar days it was either left to burn itself out, or to the farmers to extinguish it by flogging. It is not an economical proposition to maintain fire brigades to put out heath fires. When the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) says that people in agricultural parts of the country do not pay rates on agricultural land, he is right. But they do pay rates on farmhouses, and cottages, and, in my opinion, they will be paying more than the fire risk justifies.
There are two most useful new provisions in Clause 1. Paragraph (e) of Subsection (1) lays down that every fire authority shall secure
efficient arrangements for ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to prevent or mitigate damage to property resulting from measures taken in dealing with fires in the area of the fire authority;
So often one has heard the complaint, "I wish to goodness the fire brigade had not turned up at all. They completed the wreckage." Paragraph (f) provides for efficient arrangements for giving advice in respect of fire prevention Those two provisions will be generally welcomed. As regards Clause 4, which constitutes

fire authorities, Subsection (2) compels the fire authority, which is the county council and the county borough council, to constitute a fire brigade committee. I have heard it said that in many cases that is not necessary, and, in fact, it is not done at present by London County Council, which, I am told, has a committee which deals with sewers, as well as the fire brigade. But, whether it is done by London County Council or not—

Mr. Sargood: When the London County Council had control of the fire brigade, they did, in fact, have a fire brigade committee dealing specifically with that service.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged, but I am told that at some stage or other there was a committee dealing with sewers, as well as with the fire brigade. The point has been made that it is not necessary to have a special committee for dealing with fire brigades, and that some other committee of the council, already established, might be able to take on this work. I put forward that point for what it is worth. It has been put to me by one or two people who are interested in local government.
Clause 6 contains powers of compulsory amalgamation, which the right hon. Gentleman took from the Police Act. Is it really necesary for him to have powers of compulsory amalgamation as between these large authorities which he is constituting? I should have thought that county boroughs and county councils are units quite big enough. I very much doubt whether it is necessary to take powers to compel amalgamation between counties and county boroughs. I have already asked whether Clause 12 permits the delegation to smaller authorities, and I hope that that question will be answered at the close of the Debate.
I wish to ask about the transfer of property from the National Fire Service. In Clause 13, which deals with the transitional provisions, Subsection (3, d) provides by regulation:
for the transfer to fire authorities of property, rights and liabilities vested, enjoyed or incurred on behalf of His Majesty for the purposes of the National Fire Service.
Are those new authorities to receive, free of charge, large quantities of equipment used by the National Fire Service? Are the smaller authorities, which were


fire authorities before the war, and are no longer to be fire authorities today, to receive any compensation for the fact that their fire fighting appliances have been taken from them, and used by the National Fire Service, and will now be handed to the new fire authorities? The property of the old ratepayers will pass to a new authority, as far as I can see, without any provision for compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Clause 22, which I think is a very astonishing Clause. It gives power to the Secretary of State, that is, the Home Secretary, to
provide equipment for purchase by fire authorities for the discharge of their functions.
First, I thought this must refer to surplus property of the N.F.S. But the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that what is proposed are arrangements for central purchase and uniformity of fire fighting appliances. It is a very strange thing that the Home Office should undertake purchase of appliances of this character. I should have thought it much better left in the hands of one of the Supply Departments which have contracts branches which are experienced in this type of negotiation. I am very surprised that the Home Office is going to set up a new contracts branch, and going into the market for the purchase of fire fighting appliances wholesale, and for retailing them over the counter to the new fire authorities.
There are one or two general questions to which I think the House would like an answer. What progress has been made in the demobilisation of the National Fire Service? Is there to be any provision under the new scheme for part-time firemen? They are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I should have thought that part-time firemen might serve a useful purpose and effect a great economy in manpower in certain circumstances. I should like to know to what extent their employment is contemplated in the future. I ask whether in the future, as in the past, fire authorities may expect to receive any contributions from the insurance companies, who to a large extent subsidised them—if that is the right word—in the old days, to provide fire brigades?
I have mentioned a number of specific points of criticism which we will have

to reserve for the Committee stage. It is a great regret to me that the Financial Resolution is so drafted as to make it impossible for us to move to increase the amount of the Exchequer grant. I hesitated on that account whether or not to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill. However, opportunities for supporting the present Government in the abolition of Measures of nationalisation are not likely to be very numerous in either the near, or remote, future. On balance, therefore, I find the temptation to support the Government today irresistible.

5.44 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: There are many points to be raised on this Bill in Committee but I do not propose to refer to them at this stage. I was delighted to hear the Minister refer to the employment of fire women. I intended to raise that point myself. The employment of women in the fire service is a wartime innovation, and in the watch-room, at any rate, they were a very great success. They showed great courage under heavy bombing. I speak from personal experience, because I served as a fireman in the A.F.S., and N.F.S., for four years in London. Not only in the control room, but also in welfare work, these girls were very useful, in canteens and so on. They were always ready with a cup of tea and a cheery word. Women's Services such as the W.R.N.S., the A.T.S., and the W.A.A.F.S. are being retained and I am very glad to hear the Minister say that he is going to urge on the local authorities, some of whom are not very keen on the idea, that women should find their place in the local fire service, thereby relieving more men for industry. At the beginning of the war, with a great increase in personnel and a large number of sub-stations being formed, I was very struck with the unnecessary discomfort which we had to undergo in view of the lack of adequate welfare arrangements. I know that I had to give all my spare bedding and blankets to my station, and we "whipped round" to see what we could provide in the way of amusement. Hon. Members must remember that in those days the hours were 48 on and 24 off, and except in the blitz periods, this meant long hours of boredom with nothing to do. One cannot drill, or spit and polish all the time.
In peacetime my station, which was at Knightsbridge, with normal luck seldom had more than three fires a week. Many of these, of course, were only chimneys and minor events. I believe Soho had a better record from the activity point of view, as they had many little fires caused by cooks upsetting fat. But the long, boring hours of inactivity emphasised the need for adequate welfare arrangements, arid I hope something will be done by the Minister to see that the local authorities do look into this point of view. During the war I remember men coming to me and asking if it was possible for them to help the country in some way by making munitions or doing something useful. Eventually, we got a scheme going in certain stations whereby munition boxes and various gadgets were made, but we had to fight to be allowed to do it. One Minister whom I approached said, "What would happen to production in the case of a raid?" I pointed out that if there were a raid, production would be upset anyhow.
What I want to suggest is the possibility that firemen in the duty hours when they merely wait might welcome the chance of being allowed to help in industry in some way by working at their stations, even by keeping pigs, poultry or doing gardening, which is better than being idle. I should like to make a suggestion which is entirely personal, that any money earned be divided between the men themselves and some welfare fund, because, after all, they would be drawing their ordinary pay as well. That, of course, is a matter for the unions to negotiate. With regard to welfare conditions generally, the men are fortunate in being allowed to have unions to represent them—one for officers and one for men—a point which differentiates them from the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. It is for this reason that I do not object to the fact that power is given to the Secretary of State to make Regulations. Consultations between the Secretary of State and the union is far more likely to result in satisfactory terms of service than Amendments in Parliamentary Bills by hon. Members, who, in the main, can have no real knowledge of the conditions.
This Bill does include certain injustices. Let me give one example. Any fireman who goes to prison for a month loses his right to the pension towards which he has contributed. Yet a policeman, who

should have a greater knowledge of right and wrong, does not lose his unless he gets three months' imprisonment. If he goes to prison for two months he still retains his pension rights. Surely the fireman should not be penalised more than the policeman. I hope the Minister can look into that point again. Again, will the fire service be allowed to run local ambulance accident services? It would be more economical. The fire service has already rendered service in rescuing people trapped in lifts or under buses. In addition the average time taken for a fire appliance to turn out is between 20 and 30 seconds only, whereas the long delays which usually occur before the accident ambulances usually arrive make a very poor comparison. Speed may make all the difference between life and death.
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in his plea for a 50 per cent. Exchequer grant. I am sure that the Home Secretary has done his best with the Treasury. He has a very persuasive manner and if he tries again, knowing that there is a very strong body of feeling on all sides of the House in regard to this matter, I am sure he will get 50 per cent, as in the case of the police. There are other points including pensions and gratuities as between pre-war and war time firemen, compensation for loss of office and that sort of thing all of which can be raised later, but I should like to see the definition "accidental and non-accidental" injury, which discriminates for pension rates, altered to "due to service" or "not due to service." This was a definition used in war time and was far better and fairer.
Subject to modification I welcome this Bill, but so much power is given to the Secretary of State that I would ask him to bear one thing in mind. After the blitz period in London, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was asked to strike a special medal for the anti-aircraft batteries, he told this House that the casualties in the fire service were far higher than they were in the anti-aircraft personnel, and if there was to be a medal for the anti-aircraft batteries the lire service would have to get it first. I only want to say here that I never shall forget the courage of those men. There was no suggestion of taking cover during raids. They went to a fire


and put it out, irrespective of the bombs that fell around. May I give two instances? On one occasion a crew were called to a fire, only to find that it was in a house with a freshly fallen unexploded bomb in front of it. If it had not been tackled, the whole street would have been burned. Never was a fire put out more quickly. Luckily it was only the roof and top storey. On another occasion I saw a fireman standing on top of an unexploded bomb keeping the ambulances off as they came to turn after picking up the wounded. The most unforgettable sight I saw was a fireman sitting astride a burning beam in Wool-worths, cutting out the blazing wood with his axe. He was framed by a window and the background was the burning roof of Waterloo Station. People are apt to forget what these men did at that time, and I ask the Home Secretary to do all he can to see that the conditions of service under local authorities are made worthy of these men.
In the last Parliament I raised the question of some certificate of thanks and appreciation being given to the next of kin of those firemen killed in action. Miss Ellen Wilkinson said, "You have something there." I raised the matter again in this Parliament, but was told that consultation was going on. Can the Home Secretary give us an assurance that this simple act of justice, which will cost little and means so much to the relatives will be sanctioned before the demise of the National Fire Service—a Service in which I am proud to have served as an officer in a fighting and not in an administrative capacity.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: I should like to say straight away that I welcome this Bill, which I believe is calculated to produce a very efficient fire service. There are, however, two considerations that I should like to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary. The first is the very controversial and much discussed question of the choice and size of unit, namely county council and borough council. I do not suppose anybody would dispute that there are obvious advantages in having a reasonably large unit nor would the Home Secretary dispute that there are certain advantages in not too large a unit. We cannot generalise

completely. Amongst the advantages of the smaller units are such things as esprit de corps. It is easier to get a certain co-ordination and co-operation amongst men who know each other well locally and perhaps have grown up in the service from being volunteers. It is not a point on which I lay very great stress. More important, I think, is the other question of having people who are really familiar with the routes, with all the necessary topography, with the local obstacles and all the rest of it. I do not say that that is impossible with fire services operating in larger units under the county council. Obviously it is not, but there is the danger of men getting transferred from the area with which they are most familiar and that is something which wants watching.
The main and most important point, however, to be considered in favour of the smaller unit is the exceptional case. There may in other words be certain cases in which it is desirable that a non-county borough should be a unit. For example, if I may quote a case in my own constituency, a large town is scheduled for a further increase in population, and it is likely that it will shortly be rated for county borough status, and when it does it will have the right to run its own fire service. That will probably not be a very long time hence. Therefore, it seems to me highly desirable in such that that the council should have the right to start their new organisation now instead of having to change it in a couple of years time. There has been some criticism on the ground that the Bill invests too much power in the hands of the Minister. It certainly enables him to authorise larger units by means of combination. What I want to suggest is that there is one respect in which there should be invested in him even greater powers, namely, that he should be able also to authorise, where necessary and in exceptional circumstances, smaller units, because of the exceptional cases that I have in mind and of which other hon. Members may also be thinking.
The other point I wanted to bring up is the question of the costs involved. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that it is desirable that a larger grant should come from the Exchequer. It is difficult to assess in pounds,


shillings and pence exactly what a fair percentage should be. I accept that point straight away, but it is worth looking at the figures in order that we may make a rough and ready computation. Three million pounds was the cost of the prewar organisation for fire services.

Mr. Ede: It was not nearly as efficient a fire service as the one we are proposing to establish.

Mr. Levy: I am coming to that and do not dispute it. It is now proposed, however, that the figure should be £13,500,000. The service should indeed be better because there is not the slightest doubt that it is impossible to run an efficient service on £3 million. But when we subtract the 25 per cent. represented by the Government grant that means that the local authorities will have to find more than three times as much as before. It may be argued that they ought to have found more before if they had provided an efficient fire service, but the fact is that it was not always a question of parsimony. In return for this multiplication by more than three times of the financial responsibility of local authorities there is to be a 25 per cent, grant—a 300 per cent, increase and a 25 per cent. grant.
Let me try for the moment to relate the control to the grant. Again it is hard to access in pounds, shillings and pence what A degree of control is worth. I raised the question, when my right hon. Friend was on his feet, of Clause 20 because, rightly or wrongly, I understood him to include Clause 20 among those which were modelled on the 1938 Act. I asked him, therefore, whether he did or did not include it.

Mr. Ede: It is one of the Clauses which gives me control of the fire service.

Mr. Levy: Certainly it is. That was my point. I do not want to labour it. What I was about to say is that this Clause is in effect a new Clause and one which vitally affects the degree of control for the local authority. I do not oppose it, and I think that in so far as it is likely to ensure a certain improved standard of efficiency it is all to the good. But it is nevertheless a Clause which leaves with the local authority a very small degree of effectual control of the service. Supposing we

assume that it leaves 20 per cent, of control to the local authority. Against that 20 per cent, of control they have to bear 75 per cent, of the cost. I agree that that is a difficult way in which to assess the situation, but it seems to me that there is an argument there in favour of a larger grant.
One of the ways in which I would like to see it provided has already been touched upon—again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds. I do not see why the insurance companies should not contribute. That is no novelty; the thing has been done in this country before and it has been done consistently until recent years. It is the practice in Australia and in New Zealand, and indeed in New Zealand there is at present under consideration a Bill whereby the contribution by insurance companies will be no less than 50 per cent. I may point out that before the war fire insurance profits were £8,000,000. Now they are likely to be considerably larger because if the Bill has the effect which we expect it to have there will be a large increase in the efficiency of fire arrangements. That is bound to redound to the benefit of the insurance companies so that one of two things will happen. Either they will make increased profits or they will reduce their premiums. My guess is that there will be increased profits. It seems to me, therefore, that here is an obvious source to be tapped, and one which can be tapped on grounds of equity as well.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.5 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1947.
2. Air Navigation Act, 1947.
3. Polish Resettlement Act, 1947.
4. Dog Racecourse Betting (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947.
5. Forestry Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Levy: The interruption occurred at a point in my speech when other hon. Members might have embarked upon a peroration, but when I, who am always short of perorations, was about to sit down. In conclusion, therefore, perhaps I might briefly recapitulate the two points I wanted to put for my right hon. Friend's consideration. Firstly, that the Minister should not exclude the assumption of enabling powers to allow the Secretary of State to authorise, where necessary in exceptional cases, delegation of powers to a smaller unit of control. Secondly, I ask him to reconsider the question of the Exchequer grant, and in connection with that, the possibility of drawing on the insurance companies.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: If any man could commend a dubious proposition to the House, it would be the Home Secretary. His charm of manner, his knowledge of history, and his acquaintance with the intricacies of local government would enable him almost to get away with murder. I am bound to differ from his idealised description of this matter. It was that all the services taken away, in pursuance of a dire war emergency, are now being handed back in view of the solemn pledge given by the Lord President of the Council, and that the pledge was being fulfilled accurately and fully. Over and above that, the Home Secretary, on the testimony of Alderman Dale, has been able as no one else has to get a grant from the Treasury—a sort of kind uncle to the local authorities. When I heard the oblique commendation passed by the Home Secretary on himself, I was reminded of the classic remark of Mr. Squeers who, when confronted with rather thin soup, said, "There's richness for you." I am in doubt where the richness is here. Supporters of the Home Secretary are inclined to interpret this rather differently, having in mind those tiresome people we are apt to forget, namely, our constituents.
The history of this matter goes back a little further than 1938. The matter was first considered by a Royal Commission in 1923, which recommended administra-

tion by boroughs, county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts, and that these powers should be taken over by county councils only in the case of default. The Riversdale Committee, which was a very strong Committee, to which reference has been made, would not go so far. It did not recommend that county councils should even have the power to take over in the case of default. Expenditure was computed by the Riversdale Committee to be about £3 million a year. If one took into account the large amount of re-equipment, the amount of grant was something in the neighbourhood of £700,000 a year, which was the amount to which the Home Secretary made reference.
The next stage is the Act of 1938, which crystallised and made permanent the classifications of authorities. The next passage is really rather amusing to anyone who is cynical. The Lord President of the Council, in his capacity as Home Secretary, brought in the Act of 1941, which, in view of the dire blitz emergency, proposed to take away all the powers from local authorities, except in the case of the county councils. I recommend anyone who wants to be amused to read his speech. He spoke very severely about people who were inclined to be totalitarian and of a gauleiter mentality. He spoke about people who wanted to ride roughshod over local authorities, and pointed out how he was a very strong democrat and local authority man. He spoke up for rural district councils, and bodies of that kind. Having done that, he gave a carefully worded pledge, to which the Home Secretary has made reference, and a little later began to explain that perhaps these things had better be handed back to the county councils, and not to the same local authorities. It is strange, very strange, how beliefs can alter, and this perfervid democrat, who was all for the smaller authority, seemed to cool off once the power had been centralised on larger units. It was not more strange than the spiritual conflict which agitated the breast of the Home Secretary, who was apparently most anxious the police forces should be preserved for boroughs and smaller people, and actually put clauses to that effect in the first draft of the Police Bill which never reached this House. I should never have suspected it.
In 1938, the city of Birmingham ran its fire brigade at a cost of £168,000. That amounted to approximately a 7d. rate and there was no grant. The fire brigade was taken away and merged into the National Fire Service; the memorandum issued to this Bill shows there is a fivefold rise in costs and therefore it will fall upon the services being handed back. And so the cost will be some £800,000 a year for running the service. It will not all fall on us because the kind Home Secretary has been able to get the Treasury to give us no less than £200,000 a year and is good enough to say to us that he hopes we shall spend it wisely. I hope we shall, for even after that we shall still have the pleasure of finding a 1s. 11d. rate instead of a 7d. rate. Let us see how this generosity comes about. In the present financial year, as nearly as I can make out from the Estimates, the total cost of the Fire Services is round about £16 million of which some £4 million is in respect of gratuities and postwar credits, and so the true figure is round about £12 million.
It will be remembered that when the National Fire Service was formed the Minister was given power to levy a grant from the local authorities to the Treasury—an extremely unusual procedure. In the present financial year the grant is more than £2,250,000 a year, which leaves some £10 million to be found. It is computed that under this Bill and by the generosity of the Treasury in giving the local authorities some £3,500,000 a year the kind Chancellor of the Exchequer has got rid of a £10 million liability. Then the Home Secretary tells us we hope we shall spend this £3,500,000 wisely. It is very good to know that the national finances are being looked after so carefully but I doubt whether the various local authorities will take that view. I have to go back to another body of which I happen to be an alderman and let them know the cheerful news that we are going to spend £800,000 a year instead of £168,000 we formerly spent and then instead of the £122,000 we spend on Government subsidy we are to get back £200,000 with a moral lecture from the Home Secretary.
It has been said that this is a Measure to denationalise. The only reply which the Home Secretary could make to that was a rather feeble one that the services are being kept under public ownership. I remember the classic story of the man who

said that life was not worth living, because life and death were all one. When asked why he did not commit suicide he replied "It is all one." If it is all one, why is there this keenness to deal with larger units which are remote from the common people and the electorates? I was brought up to believe that county councils were the feudal strongholds of the country gentlemen, very different from the democratic borough councils, rural district councils and so on. One thing is certain, that they are more remote from the ratepayers, and it is to these people that the Government are entrusting these powers. I am in a difficult position because I dislike to halt between two opinions. I cannot vote against this Measure to hand back fire services to local authorities even if they are being handed back on bad terms. On the other hand I cannot vote for a Measure which contains financial provisions which are so unjust and which is so unfair to the smaller local authorities.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: Might I as one who lived in a town that was heavily blitzed pay my tribute to the N.F.S. who did such valiant work? I entirely agree with hon. Members opposite on the inadequacy of the grant. I would like to see a grant of up to 75 per cent. This Bill provides for national fire service cover, and will bring about uniformity. But I suggest that the Minister should contemplate a wider area than a county borough. I represent a large constituency which takes in parts of two county boroughs, and part of a non-county borough. It would be more economical to take Jarrow into the Home Secretary's constituency, South Shields, than for them to go into the county as a non-county borough which is governed by the county council. These authorities are worried as to what will be the price they will have to pay in future for this fire service. They have paid to the Exchequer each year since 1938 the amount it cost in that year to run their fire services. Under this Bill, the powers which fire brigade committees had in 1938 are not being given back to them. They must carry out a whole rigmarole of regulations laid down by the Home Secretary. The local authorities are being used as an instrument to carry out a nationalised lire service, through the Secretary of State. The powers of the local authorities are so far reduced in their autonomy that


they must carry out everything that is laid down by the Secretary of State. The expenditure to be borne by local authorities will be controlled by the Home Secretary, and 75 per cent, of that must be found by them.
There is an old philosophy that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but, by this Bill, that philosophy is being reversed. It is the Secretary of State who will call the tune, and the local authorities who must pay for its calling. The wages and conditions will be covered nationally, and I do not disagree with that Regulations will be made to deal with equipment, premises, and establishment. In the past, that would have been the local authorities' job, through their fire brigade committees, but, in future, this is to be done by the Secretary of State. Chief officers, deputy chiefs, and other persons, are to be subject to the Minister's approval. Even in the matter of promotion, which has always been the responsibility of the local fire authorities, there is procedure laid down in the Bill by which that promotion must take place. We are to have a higher standard of fire cover—with which no one disagrees—but it is estimated by the town clerks in my area that the cost will be five times what is was in 1938. That means that in the area which I represent, which was a distressed area between the wars, and which has for years been highly rated in the towns, is to have a further burden put upon it by this Bill. In Sunderland, part of which I represent, they used to pay £8,000 to £9,000 a year in 1938 for fire service. If we take the figure at £8,500 for that year, and multiply it by five, the cost will become £42,500 a year. But they are only to get a grant of 25 per cent, which is equal to £10,625. That leaves the local ratepayers to find £31,875. The rate of that town stands at 17s. 6d. in the £, and it is likely to increase. Yet this Bill will add, for this fire cover, another 8½d. to the rate.
In another part of my constituency, in Jarrow, a place which was much talked about between the wars, their rate stands at 21s. 4d. in the £. They had an efficient fire service before the war, which used to cost £700 per annum. This Bill will run the fire service for that area, under a county precept, at a cost of £3,500, and £2,600 will have to be found by this little highly-rated borough. That is equivalent to a rate of 6d. in the £. In South Shields,

which the Home Secretary represents, and part of the town I represent, and in which I live, the approximate cost of the fire service there, before the war, was £3,100 a year. If we multiply that by five, we get a figure of £15,500. The ratepayers in South Shields will have to find £11,500, or a 5d. or 6d. rate in the £, to meet the new service as proposed by this Bill. I was talking recently to a prominent alderman of South Shields Council, who told me that their present estimates will further increase the present rate of 18s. 6d. in the £. I put it to the Minister, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in these development areas, to which we want to attract businessmen, to build factories which will bring to us industries between the heavy and light industries, it will be difficult for us to encourage them to come to these areas. I am, therefore, asking the Minister to give us a higher grant, up to 75 per cent.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend when he referred to the revision of the block grant. Between now and the block grant formula being accepted, and the redistribution of available grants to local authorities, these burdens must be faced. I am sure that the voice of local authorities will be heard loudly when the implications of the finances of this Bill are fully appreciated in the months to come. I put it to the Minister, quite plainly, that the local authorities in the north are reaching saturation point in their rates. The obligations of their ratepayers are becoming extremely heavy. If a higher Exchequer grant is not given this will have a serious effect on the people who must pay for a service which ought to be paid for nationally. The local authorities will be administering this Bill and its regulations on behalf of the Secretary of State. Those regulations lay down everything that they must do. I implore the Government Front Bench, in the interests of the hard hit areas of the north, to give us a higher grant in order to ensure that our financial obligations will not be made worse than they are today.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I hope that the Government will pay attention to the speeches which have been made from both sides of the House in criticism of this Measure. We have just heard two very pungent and realistic speeches from


Members with great knowledge and experience;—one by the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts), and the other by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). When local authorities asked the Government to redeem their pledge to hand back the fire services to them, I think they expected something different from what is outlined in this Bill. Those local authorities who had their first services taken away from them interpreted the pledge given by the Government at that time as meaning that they would be given back to them. It is no answer to say that subsequently the Home Secretary, as he was then—now the Lord President of the Council—interpreted that pledge in a different fashion. It is not for one party to a pledge to be the sole authority in determining what the pledge was. If you say, "We will give back to the local authorities what we have taken away from them," I am sure that the ordinary man would understand by that simply what it says, that what had been taken away would be giver. back to those from whom it had been taken. In another respect, the way in which this pledge is being fulfilled is unsatisfactory. By this Bill, the local authorities who will have to carry out its provisions will simply be the agents of the Minister. The Minister has done a very good deal from his point of view. He is for all practical purposes, retaining all the powers he has under a national fire service, and is setting up some authorities to work out a scheme which will mean much less cost to him but put increased burdens on the local authorities.
I want to pay a tribute to the National Fire Service. I believe the efficiency of the fire service was very much improved under the national scheme, and if I had to choose between the continuance of the National Fire Service and the alternative presented by this Bill I should prefer the National Fire Service, because the Minister is keeping the realities and is giving just the shadow to the local authorities. They will bear a very heavy burden for the sake of having the shadow of control while he retains the substance. I hope, however, that whatever else may be the result of this Bill there will not be any t lessening of the high standards of efficiency set up by the National Fire Service. That is most important.
I am very much concerned to find that once again county councils and county

borough councils alone are the authorities to be recognised under this scheme. The Home Secretary has, I am afraid, a very bad record in his treatment of non-county boroughs. He was a Minister when the Education Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and that deprived them of their education powers. He is the Minister who has deprived them of their police powers, and now, in this Bill, he is proposing to deprive them of their fire-fighting powers. Does he really want to go down to history as the Minister who put more nails in the coffin of the non-county boroughs than any other Minister? I do not think he will wish to be known for that, but in point of fact that is what he is doing. He is handing over these powers to the county councils although they are quite inexperienced in administering a service of this kind, and it is no answer for him to say, "Can I possibly deal with 1,600 authorities?" There is something in between having to deal with 1,600 authorities and what he proposes in the Bill. I should have thought that he might at least have agreed that non-county boroughs with populations of 50,000 or over which had an efficient fire service before might be included in this Bill, and I would ask him still to consider that point.
He held out some hope that the county councils, in their negotiations with the district councils, might come to some agreement by which the district councils would be enabled to play their part. It is a vain hope. I do not think he can know very much about the relations which exist between county councils and the smaller authorities in their areas. The county councils will not give way an inch unless compelled to do so, and it will require a good deal of pressure from the Minister if any agreement is to be reached. I think he ought to come to the aid of these efficient non-county boroughs and I hope he will agree to a delegation of the powers to them. He said they could not be represented on the committees that are to work the fire service because they did not pay towards the expense of the service, but, of course, they do. In point of fact, it is the large non-county boroughs that make the biggest contribution towards the finances of county councils. But for them the county councils could not function at all. Therefore in the interests of efficiency, the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that they play a really


active part in the administration of this service.
I am very much worried, and I speak as a member of a county council and of a non-county borough council, at the extension of so many powers to county councils. Except in special instances, the overwhelming majority of the citizens never trouble to register their votes in county council elections; very little interest is taken in the activities of those bodies; but if there is any further weakening of the non-county boroughs we shall be destroying some of the most efficient units of local government administration and depriving a great many keen and active citizens of the opportunity to play their part in local government. I most strongly urge the Minister to give further consideration to this point. The 25 per cent, grant is most unsatisfactory and nobody realises the illogical position in reference to the grant more than the Home Secretary. With all his ingenuity he could not possibly justify the distinction between the percentage of grant given for this service and for the police service. The two services are comparable in every respect, and the least he could do would be to bring all the pressure he can to bear upon the Treasury to see that the percentage of the grant is the same for both.
I wish to emphasise what has been said about the increased burden of local rates. This service will cost non-county boroughs something like five times as much as it did under the old system. They estimate that, allowing for increased costs, they could produce as efficient a scheme as they had previously for something like twice the cost, but this scheme is to cost five times as much and they ought, therefore, to have more than a 25 per cent, contribution towards it. The rates of the local authority which I have the honour to represent in this House have gone up to 20s. in the £ now, and this Bill will bring an added burden. We know that talks are to commence with the representatives of local authorities with reference to the block grant and relieving the rate burdens, but those negotiations will take time, and as an interim measure, which would not mean a great deal to the Treasury but would be of great benefit to local authorities, I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the amount of the grant and at least to be consistent and logical in

respect of the fire and police services. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Home Secretary will be prepared to pay attention to the criticisms which have been made from all quarters of the House. We are all agreed that we want an efficient service, but if the Minister wants anything like the control that he is claiming for himself under this Bill—and there is a good deal to be said for establishing a national standard—the least he can do is to say "If you are going to give me what I want, I will see that the State makes its proper financial contribution to this service."

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Kinley: May I begin by complimenting my right hon. Friend upon having produced a very good Bill? As a Bill it is worthy of praise. But after that I want to tell him that I, personally, differ from everything which it contains, from beginning to end. I know that the local authorities have pressed for the return of their fire brigades, and my own local council will be glad when they know that their fire brigade powers are to be restored to them. Nevertheless, as one who has served on that local council for many years and has taken a keen interest in local government, I regret that the decision has been taken to turn this from a national service into one which is a local one in name only, for that is what it is. On behalf of the ratepayers of my borough I would bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that every step taken in this direction definitely reduces the standard of living of the common worker in working class areas. At one time my borough was a mixed borough, with a residential section and a working class section. The residential section has now disappeared and the borough is entirely working class. Working class people and old age pensioners are the only ones who have no power to pass on these burdens. The cost of this increased service will fall upon the wage earners, who are employed very largely by employers who are benefiting by derating.
I know that my right hon. Friend has suggested that the block grant will be adjusted later to help the hard-hit areas. That does not touch the evil at all. The block grant has never yet compensated the hard-hit areas for what they have lost, nor will any adjustment that one can anticipate as coming from the Minister of


Health. The position of local government in this country calls for very considerable changes in the attitude of Government Departments. Every local authority is exercising itself very seriously in an effort to avoid increasing the demands upon local ratepayers in respect of the services for which they are now responsible. The same story comes to us from town after town and county after county—that the services which have been forced upon local authorities by Parliament, growing and developing year by year, call for additional money from the ratepayers, and those who are responsible for spending the local rates are occupied for many hours and even many days every year in trying to avoid any large increase of rates without curtailing the services which they are providing for the people.
The system which operates now is wrongly based because, as has already been pointed out, the county borough councils are being compelled by Parliament to operate services which are truly national in their character, but by virtue of the existing machinery, which goes back actually to the days of good Queen Bess, the local people bear the main burden financially of what is truly a national service. Public health is not a local service, but a national concern. It is imposed upon the local authorities by Parliament. The police is another national service, but as to half its cost, at least, it falls upon the local ratepayer, although it is controlled entirely by the Home Office. Education is a truly national service. It is the duty of the national Government to see that all the children of the country receive an adequate education, and it is entirely wrong that half the cost of this should be thrust upon the local ratepayers.
We now have this business, which will add to the burdens, already too heavy, of the local ratepayers. I regret that the Home Secretary has decided to take this step. While I would prefer to see this remain a national service, I hope that those who have pleaded with my right hon. Friend for an increased grant may succeed. I wish to make a further suggestion. I hope the Home Secretary will give thought to the suggestion that, since so heavy a burden in respect of fire fighting is now to be put upon the local authorities, it should be accompanied by legal authority to institute, side by side with the fire fighting service, a fire insur-

ance service, so that they may recoup themselves and divert profits which are now going to the insurance companies to their own funds to pay for the fire service.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I wish to support the case that has been made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), and particularly by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), with regard to the position of non-county boroughs. As the argument has been repeated often enough, I will not repeat it again. It is merely a matter of adding another voice in protest against the way in which these non-county boroughs are being treated. This Bill is part of a system which has gone on throughout the whole period of office of the present Government. There is more and more elimination of the power of local authorities and more and more taking of power into the hands of the central authorities. I believe that to be bad for our general system of government. A great deal of the spirit of our people was built up on local pride and independence, and that is being very seriously damaged by the present system of government. It is part of a general policy which we saw exemplified in the case of the police. The same process was gone through of taking wartime powers in relation to the police with a promise that everyhing would be put right at the end of the war, and now that the present Government are in power, those promises are not being implemented, but instead the centralised system is retained.
No one disputes that we must have efficient fire services, but I do not believe the Government have bothered in the least whether this method will give efficiency. What they have aimed at is administrative convenience, and if efficiency is to be sacrificed to administrative convenience, we shall arrive at a most deplorable condition. I ask the Home Secretary at least to keep his mind open on the subject of non-county boroughs of substantial size. He will remember the argument that took place in connection with this matter on the Police Bill, and the suggestions that were made with regard to non-county boroughs of a certain population. The hon. Member for Cheltenham suggested 50,000, and I would support him in that figure, or something in that region. If non-county boroughs of that size, which have shown that they have been able efficiently to run their own fire services,


are allowed to do so, the Home Secretary will go a long way to meet the grievance that we have.
It is wrong to approach this matter in the way the Government are doing at the moment, that is to say, applying a general principle of enlarging and centralising all these organisations. The fire service comes into a different category even from the police service, in connection with which there might have been a case; the fire service is quite different. The administration of the fire service is entirely a local matter. One cannot have a fire engine 20 miles away from where it is wanted. It has to be kept locally, and it might just as well be administered from there. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope that, at a later stage of the Bill, he will reprieve the present death sentence on local administration which hangs over the non-county boroughs. With regard to grants, I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and I hope the Home Secretary will also look at that matter, which is throwing a heavy burden upon the local authorities.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Sargood: I will not repeat the arguments that have been made about the inadequacy of the grant, but will content myself with making three points, two of which will show up in greater relief the reasons why the amount of the grant is inadequate. If one looks at Clause 36 (6, b), one finds that this Bill enables the Home Secretary, by regulations made with Treasury approval, to require authorities in specified cases to pay compensation for loss of emoluments, including compensation in respect of diminution of pension attributable to loss of emoluments, to members of the National Fire Service who have become members of such fire authorities as will be set up under this Measure, and who join those fire brigades and suffer a reduction in their emoluments.
The London County Council, in common with the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations, hold the view that no good reason has been advanced why local authorities should have to shoulder that burden. The National Fire Service was considerably swollen as a result of the demands of the war, and a number of the people who were taken into the National Fire Service

during the war will become a liability on the fire authorities set up under the Bill. I am aware, of course, that it has been difficult up to now for the Home Secretary to give an assurance, because the Treasury are, no doubt, considering the general principles in regard to compensation in relation to legislation generally. I would like to have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that fire authorities to be set up under this Measure will not be called upon to shoulder the responsibility and the burden to which I have referred, apart from the fact that the total amount of grant will be inadequate.
The second point I want to make refers to Clause 25. The annual grant payable by the Exchequer to the fire authorities will be confined to expenditure incurred by those authorities in the exercise of their functions "under this Act." The operative words are "under this Act." Under the Bill, fire authorities who were fire authorities before the war, such as the London County Council, would not be enabled to include continuing liabilities, such as debt charges on previous capital outlay, or pensions to former local authority firemen, etc. I would like to have an assurance from the Home Secretary that continuing liabilities of the nature I have described will be borne by the Exchequer, and not be taken from the 50 per cent. grant, or whatever the figure may be which the Bill finally allows.
The third point relates to Clause 29. Under the constitution of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, the Home Secretary will have power to determine the representation, and no indication is given as to the proportion of representation that will be given to the different interests. It is conceivable that the Minister will, by his appointments, be able to swamp the representation of fire authorities, such as the London County Council, and therefore, I suggest that bodies of that description should have designated to them, or the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations should be given some indication of, the proportion of representation they would be allowed to have. I would like the Home Secretary to give serious-consideration to those three points, and, if possible, to meet the objections I have put forward.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I find myself very much in agreement with


all that has been said by most of the hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate. It appears to me that, broadly speaking, there were two alternatives open to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I would observe here that the Debate has been going on for three hours before the word "Scotland" has been breathed. One alternative was for the Government to run the show themselves entirely, and the other was to hand it back entirely. It is clear that, for reasons of national policy and national security, the Government have decided that the fire services to be made available, and to be kept available, are to be on a much higher scale than was envisaged in the 1938 Act.
Between 1938 and 1941, a good deal of development took place in fire services, and in rural districts, at any rate, the people considered that the development of the fire services was satisfactory; indeed they must have been certified to be satisfactory by Ministers before the war, under the 1938 Act. If the Government now come along and say "The state of your fire service must be better," then it is up to the Government to pay that difference between the two. The overall cost is to go up four-and-a-half times as compared with prewar. If the Government insist that the cost postwar is to be greater than the cost prewar, it is up to them to make up the difference. The least we can ask the Government is that they should pay the 75 per cent. and the local authorities should only have to pay 25 per cent. The proof that the Home Secretary is retaining control completely in England and Wales is to be found in Clause 20, on which he said very little. He is actually laying down the establishments that are to be maintained, and it is no use his saying that that is being done to curb extravagance. The whole House knows that there is rarely much need to curb extravagance in the case of local authorities. It is done purely and simply to keep the fire services in a state of national preparedness.
If English Members will bear with me, I wish to deal with the application of the Bill to Scotland. In this Bill there are five-and-a-quarter pages devoted to Clause 36, dealing with Scotland. That falls in that part of the Measure which is described as "Miscellaneous and General." This is obviously not general because it applies

to a particular part of Britain. Therefore, it would appear that Scotland has been classed as "miscellaneous," which is not the height of tact on the part of the Home Secretary. I suppose that the answer would be that the Act of 1938 also applied to Scotland, and in that Act, Section 28 had three-and-a-half pages dealing with its application to Scotland. The point is that the 1938 Act applied exactly the same principle both in Scotland and in England and Wales. But the Home Secretary has come to the House today and said that he wished to encourage county authorities and county districts to get together. He said that he would not have liked it if a Minister had come to the House with a cut-and-dried scheme.
That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing. He is coming to the House with a cut-and-dried scheme. We do not like it, and I am glad to have the Home Secretary on my side on this occasion. In England, under Clause 5, the counties and county boroughs are free to come together and make joint schemes, if they so wish. In Scotland we are presented with a fait accompli. Scotland is divided into 11 regions, which are virtually under the direct and complete control of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State will not take what I am about to say as being intended to be personal. It is not a matter of being personal, it is a question of the system. This Bill illustrates the authoritarian tendency growing up in Scotland, which is bound to occur when several Ministries are rolled into one. The Secretary of State for Scotland corresponds to some half-dozen Ministers in England and Wales. I see that there are no Welsh Members present, or I would most solemnly warn them against falling into the same trap. We do not want the Secretary of State for Scotland to become a mere satrap, or protector, to use another and more recent phrase, gathering ever wider and wider powers, to make certain that he can comply with the instructions he receives from his masters in the English capital.
Surely this is a case where we should have had a separate Bill for Scotland. To a certain extent the Bill recognises that the circumstances are different, by establishing a separate Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for Scotland.
The second thing in this Bill with which I am concerned is the tendency to set up joint authority areas. I would like to ask


the Secretary of State to what extent he has in mind combining the same authorities for different functions. We do not want to have certain counties combined for health services, certain other counties combined for police services and another combination again for fire services. After all, if these things are to be planned if there is to be some concentration, we are entitled to hope that the planning will lead to simplicity and not to complication, cross-division and confusion. If there is a proof that the National Fire Service is really still to continue in Scotland, it can be found in the Scottish Home Department's Circular No. 6149, issued in September, 1945, which at that time recommended ten areas, "whether they were administered on a national or local basis."
There is really no handing back to the local authorities; it is only a facade. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to speak, in one of those flowing phrases of his, of "a full measure of local autonomy" when he has already made schemes for all the areas, appointed fire force commanders and had deputies chosen by a selection board, decided the establishment, fixed the pay of fire force commanders, determined what equipment is to be held and prepared programmes for building. When all that has been done, how can we say that this Service is being handed back to local authority management?
There is one point I should like to make about the further cost in rural areas. Obviously the fire risk is less, and the probability of the fire brigade arriving in time is a good deal smaller. Yet in the county of Dumfries the cost is to be 20 times what it was before the war. Again, the cost of the National Fire Service for the county of Angus during the war was less than 1½d. Now it is to rise to 8½d. at least—2d. more than Glasgow, where the risk is infinitely greater. That is the effect of the compulsory amalgamation of Angus with the city of Dundee. The Secretary of State had wished to include Perth and Kinross also, but I believe that the outcry of my hon. Friends the Members for Perthshire was so great that he had to provide a separate area at half the cost.
Surely, the basis of this whole scheme is the continuation, in some form, of the

National Fire Service. It did splendid work in the war, but there is a strong pressure, unlike the Armed Forces, particularly in the higher ranks, to remain in action instead of demobilising. I would sum up by saying I would infinitely have preferred a separate Bill for Scotland, I deplore the direction that is perpetually to be given to the local authorities while the local authorities are being made to bear the bulk of the financial burden, and I consider that real autonomy should be restored to local bodies, and not merely the semblance of it.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Bing: Finding myself suddenly in the middle, as it were, of a Scottish Debate, perhaps I will be permitted by the House to deal with something which is common both to Scotland and England, that is, the general conditions of service of the men actually in the various fire services. We have heard a great deal today about what local authorities do not want to put up with, and matters of that sort. It is perhaps a good thing to turn for a moment to the conditions of service of the men in the force. I am sure that would have happened before now had it not been that of the two officials of the Fire Brigades Union who are in the House, one finds himself a Minister, and the other is in the even more responsible position of being the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary.
This Bill will make a considerable difference to the conditions of service of the ordinary fireman. It is generally conceded that it is not sufficient to leave the fire authorities in the position of ordinary employers and to say to them "If you do not like a fireman, you can dismiss him." Obviously, there has to be some sort of discipline. And, indeed, since the fire service is a pensionable one, it is desirable that there should be some penalty imposed which is less than dismissal, because dismissal in a pensionable service is a considerable penalty. But when those who are in the fire service agree to this, they are making considerable sacrifices. They are making a considerable sacrifice of what are considered to be normal trade union rights. Their employers are allowed to impose a fine, to override the Truck Act and to impose additional duties at will.
I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should consider, when framing the regulations which he has to make under this Measure, the possibility of giving the ordinary fireman a certain security of office in exchange for his giving up these particular rights. He might possibly consider, first, that a fireman ought only to lose his job on four grounds, the first obviously if he is medically unfit—if he is not able to come up to the strict medical standard necessary for a fireman; secondly, if he has reached an age when it is impossible for him to continue; thirdly, if he has committed an offence under the disciplinary code; and fourthly, when he and the Authority mutually agree to part.
I suggest to the Home Secretary that the disciplinary code should be drawn with some care, ft is clear that it is impossible to go back to the situation which existed before the war. Then there was no standard disciplinary code. Indeed, most local authorities did not have any code at all. In London there were the general fire orders of the London Fire Brigade which provided a code which worked very well, but the general consensus of opinion is that it is not particularly suitable to apply to smaller brigades. But if the prewar codes were unsatisfactory, I suggest to the Minister that the wartime code was much more unsatisfactory. It was introduced at a time when the fire service was conscripting men and when, therefore, dismissal was not really much of a threat. It was a time when discipline had to be very strict. The fireman was doing just as good a job as many men in the Forces. However, in these new peacetime circumstances, I think the Home Secretary might consider the possibility of framing his new disciplinary code on certain broad principles which I will outline.
First, the firemen should only be punished for something which they have done in the course of their job. It is very fortunate that when I come to intervene in a Scottish part of this Debate, I can draw an example from a Scottish town where the wives of two of the watch-room attendants quarrelled with each other. In the end the thing reached such a degree of acrimony that one of the husbands complained to his fire commander. The fire commander ordered the other man to apologise. "Well," said the second man, "as a matter of fact,

my wife never said these things," and so on. In consequence the commander proceeded to discipline this man for disobeying an order by refusing to apologise. Clearly, that is most undesirable. Private relations of that sort should not be brought under the fire code.
Many of the brigades will be comparatively small and a trial before, the chief officer is undesirable. They are a few people together, they all know each other; it would be much more suitable if the trial took place before the fire brigade committee or a sub-committee which would investigate charges. Perhaps the Secretary of State would consider that the right of appeal in these cases might be extended. At the moment it only exists in a somewhat imperfect form in cases of dismissal. The Minister might well consider extending that to cases where there is a reduction in rank or where a heavy fine is imposed.
My fourth point is that, generally speaking, under most contracts of service, a worker cannot be suspended by his employer unless he is kept on full pay. In the fire service at the moment there is an undesirable provision that a fireman who is suspended is placed on half pay. There may be numerous occasions on which it is necessary to suspend a fireman. I will quote one case which comes from Aberdeen. There was a case there where two firemen were charged with an offence which arose out of a fire. They were, very properly, I am sure, suspended and it was then decided to wait until the result of civil proceedings, arising out of the same incident, became known, before the charge was dealt with under the disciplinary code. The consequence was that for months and months these two unfortunate men were dependent on half pay, which was not sufficient to maintain them and they were in a position that they could not seek any other employment. Finally, there ought to be some arrangement by which the conduct of the chief officer can be investigated. Under the general orders of the London Fire Brigade there was such a provision. My right hon. Friend might consider whether that provision, at any rate, from the general orders of the London Fire Brigade might not be put into any disciplinary code which he makes.
To conclude, I wish to refer to one of the Clauses to which the Minister, oddly


enough, omitted to refer in the very exhaustive account of the Bill which he made. As I understand it, Clause 12 permits the use of private fire brigades of various sorts. At a later stage perhaps the Minister would consider the general issue here. There may be a fire brigade whose first loyalty is not to the area as a whole but to some local business organisation. The question also arises of the compensation payable to the men who work in that type of brigade, especially where there is a joint scheme working one with the other. I do not want to develop this point beyond saying that I feel that this Clause follows rather too closely Section 1 (3) of the 1938 Act It is a Committee point. I suggest that the Minister might, before the Committee stage look at this matter again to see how far he feels that the general framework of the Bill has' not outgrown the provisions which he is now including in Clause 12.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: I hope the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will forgive me if I do not follow him in what he said, except to remark that I entirely agree with him regarding the importance of discipline. A suitable disciplinary code is an essential part of the efficiency of a service of this nature. As one who represents an ancient city which did not suffer so much as some the damages and dangers of the blitz, I wish to add my tribute to that of the Home Secretary to those who did such marvellous jobs in those places which were badly blitzed. Particularly, I pay a tribute to the women who assisted so much, and add the hope that they may play their part in the future and thus assist to solve our manpower difficulties. The Minister said that he was willing that all local bodies should be heard. I hope that in the remaining stages of the proceedings on this Bill, he will listen to their views on detailed matters of administration.
A great deal of criticism has been voiced from both sides of the House in regard to the treatment of non-county boroughs. I know what my namesake, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, thinks about this matter, because when he was Home Secretary he said:
It is the very definite intention of the Government that this is a wartime expedient only … It is certainly my very definite view that after the war the fire-fighting forces should again be a local authority service;

that, is to say, that they should not be permanently run by the State, but should again become a local authority service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1941; Vol. 371, c. 1429.]
Incidentally, I hope soon the right hon. Gentleman will be back in this House. No doubt, many local authorities took those remarks of the right hon. Gentleman literally to mean that the service would be handed back to them. This has caused some disappointment. I hope that the Home Secretary will meet these various local difficulties as far as possible, and particularly in regard to the delegation of authority from the county council. This point has been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). The non-county boroughs have had rather a raw deal throughout, as I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree.
I hope that we shall find that, where a county authority is satisfied that a district authority can take over the fire service and work it satisfactorily—as indeed many district authorities did before the war—they will be allowed to do so. Apart from any other consideration, that would promote a local interest and efficiency which makes a great deal of difference to the running of this type of service in the interests of the community. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has discussed the question of compensation. I believe the sum of £6,800,000 was mentioned as being the cost of the apparatus originally taken over by the National Fire Service. How, and in what way, is this to be paid for when it is taken over now? I hope we shall hear more about that subject.
On the question of the pensions scheme, I hope that, either now or on the Committee stage, we shall be given more detail regarding the minimum age at which a man can retire and the pension scale covering the various ages of retirement. I would like to reinforce another point which was mentioned—the question of the standardisation of equipment. If that is to be done—and it may be a good thing in some instances—so that hose pipes and other appliances should fit between different fire brigades. But we do not want it to lead to a loss of progress and inefficiency. After all, through the years, efficiency has been brought about by new ideas in the fire services. I hope that matter will be very carefully considered.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: Like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison), I would like to begin by paying my tribute to the National Fire Service, particularly in regard to the readiness with which those members of the Force stationed in non-dangerous areas agreed to go to the assistance of their comrades in the areas that were being attacked. I listened with interest to the Home Secretary's introduction of this Bill. Neither he nor I was present at the conference at the Home Office in May, 1941, and therefore both of us have to rely upon the evidence which is available to us of what took place. I attempted by an interjection, to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman information on what authorities were present at that conference. He intimated that he would indicate that later in his speech, but for one reason or another he omitted to do so. He made a good deal of the point that the service was being handed back to the local authorities. But how it is possible to "hand back" a service to a local authority which never had it before 1941 I fail to understand.
I would remind my right hon. Friend that the County Councils Association were not represented at the conference in 1941 because they were not interested, not having been fire authorities. The organisations represented were the Urban District Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Rural District Councils Association and the London County Council. As far as these associations are concerned, they are quite clear in their minds. They understood that the promise given by the Lord President of the Council when he was Home Secretary was, that the service would be returned to the authorities from whom it was taken in 1941. It is contended that the changes which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to bring about are not consistent with the Report of the Royal Commission on Fire Brigades of 1923, nor are they consistent with the Report of the Departmental Committee on Fire Brigades of 1936, and certainly not in conformity with the Fire Brigade Act, 1938. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what special qualifications county councils possess suddenly to become fire authorities. One could think of one very eminent reason, but I hesitate to suggest that it is because the Home Secretary has a county council mind.

Mr. Ede: I was for many years a member of an urban district council, and I have as much an urban district council mind as a county council mind.

Mr. D. Jones: That has not been reflected unfortunately in the legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible in this Parliament or the last Parliament. Delegation by designation is an unsound procedure because of the differing sizes of local authorities. What are the actual facts? If we take the figure of 50,000 as an optimum figure, we find there are five administrative counties—four in Wales and one in England—with a population of less than 50,000. We find there are seven county boroughs each with a population of less than 50,000 persons. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he wants a bigger area and a bigger unit, and he proceeds to designate five administrative counties and seven county boroughs with populations of less than 50,000 as fire authorities, overlooking the fact probably that there are 44 non-county boroughs in this country with a population of over 50,000 and 12 urban districts with a population of over 50,000. If he wants a bigger unit, he might have looked to an optimum figure rather than delegation by designation because as a result of that he has created this unfair position.
In Clause 5 there is power for authorities to agree to combine. In Clause 6 there is power for the Home Secretary to make combination schemes. With these powers in his possession, he could have returned the fire forces to the authority which possessed it pre-1941, exercising the voluntary or compulsory rights contained in the Bill to order the amalgamation of authorities smaller than 50,000 in order that he might bring them up to that or any other figure he might have considered desirable. There was no need for 1,440 separate fire authorities to remain in existence. By the powers contained in Clauses 5 and 6 they could have been reduced to a smaller total, each authority being of a serviceable size.
This whittling away of the power of the medium-sized local authorities one after the other is undermining the respect in which local government is held in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) when he suggests that it started


with this Government. The responsibility for whittling away the power of medium-sized local authorities, if it rests at the door of anybody at all, must rest at the door of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler). Education, police, town planning and now the fire service were all services which were administered by urban districts and non-county boroughs. There may be a case for a re-examination of the problem of local government, there may be a case for creating bigger local government areas; but this method of taking away the powers of the minor authorities one by one is pre-judging the position in advance of any complete examination as to what form local government shall take in this country in the future. I want to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the power which he possesses in the Bill to amalgamate two authorities. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) raised the same point. If power is sought to combine two authorities, why not power to combine one authority and the adjoining parts of another?
Clause 13 seeks to provide regulations to transfer the property of the county districts to the new fire authorities. I repeat a question asked by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake): is compensation to be paid for this property, and if it is, by whom is it to be paid? Clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21 give a much greater power to the Home Secretary than he has possessed hitherto under the 1938 Act. Why this greater power to the central government when the central government provides only 25 per cent. of the cost? It is not handing back this power to local authorities if the central government retains in its possession the greater part of the direction as far as the service is concerned while at the same time avoiding its obligation of meeting what ought to be regarded as its fair share of the cost of running this service.
The Bill seeks to take away one more power from the smaller authorities. I regret this very much. The Bill is not liked by the 572 urban districts in this country, and it is certainly not liked by the 500 non-county boroughs. I suggest to the Home Secretary that if he desires some measure of agreement between the county districts and the county councils.

he must put into this Bill very definite powers of delegation. The county districts remember the speeches delivered in this House during the passage of the Education Act, both by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and by my right hon. Friend who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. Speech after speech was made in this House in which it was suggested that the divisional executive to be set up under that Bill, would be given a life of their own in the educational structure of this country. The Home Secretary might spend the Easter Recess in having a good look at the schemes of delegation which the county councils of this country have drawn up, and the manner in which they treat these divisional executives.
This House cannot depend upon some mutual agreement. If it feels that these minor authorities ought to have these fire authority powers, it ought to be inserted in the Bill. I hope that during the Committee stage these powers will be inserted. If it can be agreed that an optimum figure of 50,000, 75,000 or 100,000 is necessary to create a sizeable unit for fire purposes, that can be done by exercising the powers in Clauses 5 or 6.

7.50 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will forgive me if I do not follow him in any great detail. There were many points he raised with which I found myself agreeing very sincerely, but I must bring the House back to the question of this Bill in relation to Scotland. It is the most perfect example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpher-son) has said, of the necessity for a separate Bill for Scotland. I cannot think what the Secretary of State for Scotland was doing in agreeing to have one Bill for England and Scotland. We have had this point out with him several times before, and I think, at one time he was more inclined to see the light in this matter than he is now. It is a scandal that a Bill of this kind which requires nearly six pages, including 22 Subsections, to try to make it applicable to Scotland should be found in one cover. It is quite fantastic, and I wish to register a strong protest on the subject.
Apart from this, I cannot help feeling that here we are up against bureaucracy


in excelsis. The local authorities have been told by the Minister that they will have their fire services given back to them. Really, that is hardly the truth. The local authorities will be directed, ordered about, checked, counter-checked from the central Government in every single operation they try to undertake, and it is absurd to say that he is returning to the local authorities the fire services which were taken from them under a guarantee. I do not want to emphasise the question raised already about the speech made in 1941 by the then Home Secretary, but the Psalmist says:
Put not your trust in princes nor in the son of man.
If he had said "Ministers" instead of "princes," he would have been much nearer the mark, because there is a direct breaking of the pledge in the minds of all the local authorities up and down the length of Great Britain.
I would like to touch briefly on what has been raised several times, the question of the Government taking practically 100 per cent, of the authorities' control in exchange for 25 per cent, of the cash. It is grossly unfair. I do not want to labour the point but, when one thinks what the local authorities are already saddled with 111 the matter of rates, it is nothing short of a scandal that, with all this control, the controlled body should have to provide 75 per cent, of the funds. The cost seems to be enormous. Admittedly, it has to be greater than it was before the war, but I understand that on Lloyds, who have considerable knowledge of these things, the estimate for fire risks for the whole of Great Britain and Eire for 1946 was something like £12,500,000. This means that the administrative cost of this new service under this Bill will be more than the whole of the estimated risks for 1946 for Great Britain and Eire. It does not seem to be a right proportion at all, and I hope the Minister may have something to say on that point.
The ratepayers in remote areas, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), will get a bad bargain out of this In my own constituency I have the borough of Perth, which has an admirable fire service, efficient and excellent, and the lieges of Perth will do well out of this Bill. But what about the citizens of Glenshiel, Kirk-michael and Kinloch Rannoch—miles

away from any fire service? Why should they have to pay this rate for the privileges that the Perth citizens will get? I do not think it is right. Not that I wish the Perth citizens to have any less, but it is not right that there should be the same payment by these people in out lying districts who, quite frankly, will not be covered at all. Just how did these areas into which Scotland is to be divided, actually come about? Who decided this? I hope the Secretary of State will tell us clearly who decided, for instance, that a man sitting in Inverness will control the fire services in the Shetlands? Who decided that a man sitting in Paisley will control the fire services in the farthest flung corners of Argyllshire? Are we to see from Greenock, which come sunder the same area, fire floats setting out to Campbeltown ploughing their way across the main to deal with fires in the South of Argyll? That is an exaggeration, I admit, but how did these areas come about, and who decided them? And why should the English Minister give options to the English county areas for combining when the Scottish areas have had no option? I would like an answer to that.
I would like to know also if the Secretary of State thinks it is good, in principle, that there should be compulsory and not voluntary amalgamation. After all, under the 1938 Act it was to be voluntary, but there were plenty of safeguards for those' who did not play the game. There were compulsory Clauses. I think it is bad in principle to have compulsory amalgamation. The Association of County Council's in Scotland is deeply concerned over this Bill, and so is the National Fire Service Officers' Association—two bodies to whose opinion every deference should be paid. The majority of local authorities, certainly in my part of the world, I honestly believe, would prefer to retain the National Fire Service than function under this Bill. Although I dislike nationalisation of anything, one must pay attention to the people who have thought this out carefully and who have to operate it. I think, now they know, they would rather have the old status. I would also like the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us what representations the small burghs in Scotland will have under this Bill. I do not think they should be left out. Many of them have had excellent fire services in the past and they are entitled to full consideration.


They may be covered, but I would like that to be made clear
Now I come briefly to the question of appointments. I do not understand this. Under Clause 19 appointments are to be made after consulting with the Fire Brigade Administrative Advisory Council. Yet in Scotland, and certainly in Perthshire, two people—the fire master designate and the depute fire master designate—have already been nominated and are known, and so have many others. By what right does the Secretary of State do this before Parliament has even sanctioned the Bill? This is a most retrograde and quite irregular step. It is perfectly clear that before you can take the advice of an advisory council, you must have authority for setting it up, and the Clause in the Bill is provided for that purpose. But it has not yet been set up, and the Clause further states that these should and must be consultation with that body before making appointments. Then, why were those appointments made in Scotland without such consultation?
Again, on this question of appointments, I ask: are local authorities not competent to choose men for these posts? I understand that there is a pool of trained men who have been serving admirably, and there are other people not in that pool who should be considered. It is an insult to a local authority of standing to say they are not competent to choose a fire master or a deputy fire master but must take whoever the Minister appoints. I think it is an outrageous state of affairs, and sheer dictatorship on the part of the Minister.
In Clause 36, which is the wonderful "Woolworths' stores" application to Scotland, there are miles of it. We have complained about this before, and the Secretary of State said that it was a Bill in itself. It is a Bill in itself, which is quite unintelligible. If taken out of its context, the Clause is absolute gibberish. It is absolute nonsense to say that this Bill is complete as far as Scotland is concerned, because we have this involved Clause 36. On one involved Subsection of the Clause I would like some information. Subsection (15) says that the public Health Act of 1936 shall apply to Scotland. Since when in a purely English Measure, which expressly stated that it should not apply to Scotland, has it become a habit to tuck in this provision, and

say that it applies to Scotland? It seems that we are opening up a. completely unconstitutional way of doing things. I have had it on very high legal authority in Scotland that this has only happened once or twice before, and that a stop was put to it as it was considered unsatisfactory and dangerous. I would like to know why the Secretary of State has given his consent to such a provision being put into a Bill.
I should like to know what the Secretary of State is really up to. There is grave dissatisfaction in Scotland about what is happening in the representation of Scottish interests. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that no Secretary of State ever had such loyal support from his colleagues as he has had. I think that is excellent, but why are the results so miserable? Why are our rights and interests being whittled down as is being done at present? If it is true that the Cabinet loyally support the Secretary of State—and I have no reason to doubt his word—it is with the Secretary of State that the trouble lies. He cannot be presenting the claims of Scotland as he should be, or his loyal colleagues would be backing him up. I think Scotland knows, as the result of this Bill and many previous Measures, that the representation in the Cabinet is quite ineffective. We are told that there is a loyal Cabinet; therefore, there must be an inefficient Secretary of State.

8.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): It might be convenient to the House if I were to intervene at this stage, and deal with several of the points which have been raised generally in their application to the Bill, and with particular reference to how these general questions apply to Scotland; and also to deal with some of the specific points put by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who opened the Debate from the other side, asked several questions which have a general application. First, he asked what had been the rate of demobilisation of the National Fire Service. In Scotland, the full strength has fallen from a peak of about 10,000 firemen and firewomen, to a total of 2,350, which will fall in the next six months to about 2,000. He asked if it was intended to


employ part-time firemen. The answer is a most emphatic "Yes." In Scotland there are 2,300 part-time retained men. This figure may be slightly increased. Part-time men will necessarily provide the main cover in many parts of the landward areas, and in the small burghs.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if it is intended to pay compensation to former fire authorities. Here the answer is an emphatic "No." But a fully equipped service will be handed to the new fire authorities. He asked if Clause 12 (1) enabled the new fire authorities to delegate to small authorities who were not fire authorities. Here again the answer is "No." It will enable arrangements to be made with other fire authorities and persons who maintain a fire brigade. My hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies know of cases where private fire brigades are provided. It is possible to enter into an arrangement between the fire authorities and efficiently privately owned fire brigades.
A question was asked whether insurance companies would contribute to the cost of the fire service. All I can say is that I did not settle that problem. It was settled for us in 1938, and it was not a Labour Government which was in office at that time. The question was settled when the fire service under the 1938 Act was made free of charge and established in all areas. There were many areas in England and Scotland, particularly in Scotland, where there was no cover prior to the 1938 Act. The insurance companies then made a substantial payment in liquidation of their previous liabilities to contribute to the cost of fire fighting. I think a question was asked in connection with the Islands. There will be an obligation to enable them to provide a fire service. But they will be enabled under Clause 1 (3) to fix standards which have regard to the special circumstances and requirements of the area.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman says he is handing back equipment, and so forth. Does that mean that all the equipment available is being handed over free of debit?

Mr. Westwood: Certainly. When we nationalised the fire service we had not an efficient fire service in every part. In some places we had. In Scotland, some

of the small burghs had efficient fire services, but, in other places, the councils had made no provision of any kind. We built up a fire service during the war. We intend to hand over an efficient fire service when we are handing back to local authority administration. That will explain one or two of the reasons why I have had to take action on the lines on which I have taken action.
I come to one or two specific points raised by hon. Members opposite representing Scottish constituencies. There was a general complaint that this was a United Kingdom Bill. I am not responsible for that provision. I happened to be in the House in 1938 when the 1938 Bill became an Act of Parliament. I did not hear a single voice from the Conservative Party at that time demanding—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was not here.

Mr. Westwood: The hon. and gallant Member was not here. Maybe if he had been here, he would not have made the mistake of blaming me for what the Conservative Party did, which I think is right.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he agreed.

Mr. Westwood: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had waited a moment I would have told him that I did agree most emphatically, because in the 1938 Act there were three and a half pages of an application Clause for Scotland. In this Bill there are five and a half pages of an Application Clause. I make no apology for supporting this as a United Kingdom Bill. It was a United Kingdom Bill in 1938.

Commander Galbraith: When there is such a departure between the two countries as shown here, surely it would be better to have a separate Bill for Scotland?

Mr. Westwood: No. There is no vital departure in the matter of principle. There is only the departure in the way of the application of those principles because of Scottish administrative problems. It was impossible for anyone to say that the 1938 Act was satisfactory. We never had an opportunity of operating it. The war broke out and there is no indication that


the scheme applied in the 1938 Act would either have been successful or unsuccessful. It never had a chance to operate. Therefore, we have experience behind us when considering the handing back of the administration to the local authorities. We desired to hand back an effective service—a service which in our opinion would work effectively and efficiently for fire-fighting purposes.
Then I was asked to what extent these combined authorities would operate in connection with certain other matters. All I can point out in this connection is that this is not a national administration of the fire service. We had six areas in Scotland. I do not think anyone would say that they were not reasonable areas in the knowledge that we were able to get as a result of the operational efficiency during the war. What we have done in connection with those areas is to split them into two so as to get nearer that point of having a larger number of areas in which to have effective operational control for fire-fighting purposes. I am in favour of a full measure of local authority control, but I want my hon. Friends to realise that this is still a National Fire Service. As far as Scotland is concerned, I will be responsible for handing over an effective and efficient unit ready to operate at once, because fires will not wait during the time local authorities are arguing who is to be put in control of the fire service. I am still responsible for the service until this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. When it becomes an Act of Parliament local authorities will prepare a scheme, because administration and operational work may vary in different areas. They will put forward their different schemes for consideration and my hon. Friends can rest assured that I am in favour of the maximum amount of local control for these services.
There have been complaints about the 25 per cent. grant. It is a common complaint and almost everyone who has spoken in the Debate has touched upon it. I would remind the House that in the 1938 Act there was no provision for a grant of any kind, and undoubtedly fire services could not have been provided which were efficient based upon the conditions which operated prior to 1938, for inevitably the costs would have been vastly increased if we had had time to put

the 1938 Act into operation. For instance, firemen under normal conditions will not be prepared to work on the six days' continuous system. They have a 60-hour week and there are improved conditions, and those conditions would have to be further improved irrespective of whether we had retained all of the 1938 Act and simply handed the fire services to the local authorities that were mentioned in that Act. The local authorities would have had to bear the increased costs and would have had to face up to that question. I for one did not thrust the fire services back upon the Scottish local authorities. They demanded that those services should be handed over, although a majority of certain types of local authority favoured the service remaining as a nationalised fire service. We are seeking to hand to the local authority administration an efficient fire service.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the numbers who replied to the question in the Circular which he sent out in September, 1945?

Mr. Westwood: Not without notice, but I will endeavour before the Committee stage to give the hon. Member the answer.
I was asked why it was necessary to have the application to Scotland of Section 287 of the English Public Health Act, 1936, followed by Section 27 of the Fire Brigade Act, 1938. The reason is that the powers given are more up to date and satisfactory than the 50-years-old provision of the Scottish Public Health Act, 1897.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if something is thoroughly wrong in 1938 it should still be done in 1947?

Mr. Westwood: This is giving power to enter premises. It happened to be in the Public Health Act and gave more up-to-date powers to deal with fires.

Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider it better if he had that Section of the Act to which he has referred stated in full here instead of merely referring to it by figures so that people would know what it meant? In the meantime people resident in Scotland, if they want to know, must go to the trouble of hunting up the Public Health Act to look up this Section. It is not a convenient way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Westwood: I admit at once it is not convenient, but when we have consolidation these things can be dealt with.
A reference was made to the circular which we have issued. It was issued at the request of the local authorities' association to indicate the considerations involved. The areas mentioned were not announced as those we were proposing but those recommended by the Fire Commission—a body I had in Scotland to advise me in connection with problems associated with fire fighting. These areas were selected as being suitable operational areas irrespective of the form of control.
If I might I would now give one or two facts concerning Scotland and the reason for commending this Bill to the House. In Scotland the fire fighting authority under the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, were the county councils, the councils of counties, of cities and of all burghs. I said burghs and that included the small ones. There were, therefore, in Scotland under the 1938 Act, 228 separate authorities. Under this classification there was the case of New Galloway, which would be a fire fighting authority if we had continued the provision of the 1938 Act. In that area a penny in the pound brings in £8. It would not have given them the necessary amount to buy a barrel or a whistle never mind give effective fire fighting cover.
I am sure hon. Members opposite agree in this connection. Some of the 228 separate authorities which I have mentioned acted in combination, but there were something like 200 separate brigades. The great majority of these consisted of a single pump manned by part-time retained firemen with no adequate arrangements for training and no effective system of reinforcements, except for war emergency purposes. These brigades included in all about 600 whole-time regular firemen, most of them working, as I have already indicated, on a six-day continuous duty system, and about 1,500 part-time retained firemen. The efficiency of this organisation varied from area to area and I admit that it would unquestionably have been improved as the arrangements contemplated by the Act of 1938 came more fully into operation.
I submit, however, that it was inconceivable that, on the basis of that Act, a fully efficient and co-ordinated service with proper standards of training and ade-

quate and mobile equipment of standard design and performance could have been created. That would have been absolutely impossible. Many of the authorities were without the resources required to build up such an organisation, and even if this had not been so, its maintenance for the benefit of the small communities for which they were responsible would have been quite uneconomic. Of the 195 burghs in Scotland, for example, 119 have a population of fewer than 5,000. In 86 of these burghs a penny rate produces less than £100. Of the 33 counties the landward population in 18 is fewer than 25,000; and the yield of a penny rate in 16 of them is less than £500. It is remarkable, and a great credit to the local authorities concerned, that upon this unsatisfactory basis so adequate an auxiliary service was built up before and immediately after the outbreak of war.
But wartime experience showed clearly that in Scotland, as in England and in Wales, a broader-based organisation was essential if the available resources were to be capable of quick and efficient deployment, if adequate standards of training were to be reached—and we had no adequate standards of training under the old arrangements—and if essential uniformity of equipment, of fire fighting practice and in the chain of command, was to be achieved. When the National Fire Service was formed, the Scottish Fire Commission was consulted about the general lay-out to be adopted. That Commission is a body which, under the very able chairmanship of Sir Robert Bryce Walker, to whom the fire service in Scotland owes a great debt, gave us valuable help throughout the war and in the early postwar years, and consists almost entirely of men of wide local authority experience. With its approval it was decided to divide Scotland into six areas, as I have already indicated. In each of these the fire-fighting resources, carefully planned and integrated, were placed under a single command, and at its peak the National Fire Service had at its disposal in Scotland some 2,250 appliances and nearly 10,000 whole-time and nearly 16,000 part-time employees, both men and women.
This wartime organisation which, though greatly reduced in strength, is still in existence, has worked well and effectively—so much so that, as I have said, among Scottish local authorities there


was a strong body of opinion which favoured the retention of the National Fire Service for peace time needs. The Highland counties, particularly, were very anxious for the National Fire Service to continue because of the excellent work which it has been able to do—under sometimes exceptional conditions—in some of those counties. Cut the Secretary of State for Scotland pledged himself at that time—just as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for England—to return the service to local authority administration. I therefore took counsel with the Fire Commission in order to decide which areas would, from the operation point of view, best enable a thoroughly efficient service to be organised to meet peace time needs. Here, incidentally, I am dealing with the question which was put to me as to who mapped out these areas. After full discussion and after hearing expert opinion, the Commission recommended the adoption of ten areas in place of the wartime six, that is, exclusive of Glasgow which is left as a separate unit, as will be seen from the Schedule.
That was the body which advised me and it was not the plan of the Secretary of State for Scotland or of his Department. These 10 areas have since been increased to 11. It was thought best to leave Glasgow as a single area instead of joining it in a combined area with the counties of Lanark and Dunbarton. The areas as thus revised are the City of Glasgow and the 10 areas set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. I am quite satisfied that they provide a sound operational basis for our new service. After all, I have had a double experience in dealing with fire service, for I was myself a convenor of a fire brigade committee in a town where I was an administrator, and it was my work during the war, as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to take direct responsibility for the fire services in Scotland. If, however, experience shows these areas to be in any respect unsatisfactory, provision is made in Clause 37 (8) for their modification after due consultation with the authorities concerned, and subject to proper safeguards. If these modifications are made by agreement with the local authorities no further action is required except to put them into effect. If there is disagreement and we still want to make some modifications, they are subject to Negative Resolution in the House.
Having settled the areas we had next to consider how they should be administered. In Glasgow there was no problem and the town council will, as before, become the fire authority. In the other areas we had to choose between setting up a new ad hoc authority and providing for joint administration by a combination of existing local authorities. The first alternative could hardly be justified for the administration for so relatively small a service, and the Bill accordingly proposes to adopt the second. It designates as the fire authorities the councils of counties and large burghs. When it comes to working things out, the scheme will have to provide for a fair representation between the authorities. The small burghs will be able to come in because they have their representatives on county councils, as every hon. Member for Scotland knows. Small burghs are on the county councils and I shall have to watch, when the schemes are presented for my approval, that the county councils have seen that there is reasonable representation in connection with the working of the fire service. I think I have dealt fairly and adequately with the points which have been raised. The object is to try to hand over to the fire fighting authorities which are designated in the Bill an efficient and effective service which will be a credit to those who have the responsibility for it.

Commander Galbraith: Can we have any information on how the right hon. Gentleman intends this service to be paid for? Does he intend that there shall be any difference as between the payments of the landward areas and the burghs, for obviously the burghs must receive more protection than it is possible to afford the landward areas?

Mr. Westwood: The grant will be at a standard rate of 25 per cent. based upon their expenditure. I am willing to look into any scheme put forward by local authorities who are willing to differentiate so far as the rate charge is concerned. The grant will be a standard grant of 25 per cent., and the local authorities will have to look at the position and see where the major cover is given.

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman put forward suggestions?

Mr. Westwood: I have no objection to suggestions being made.

8.32 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts: I want to add the name of the city I represent to the list of those other cities and local authorities as far apart as Birmingham, Durham and Cheltenham on whose behalf hon. Members have appealed to the Front Bench this evening. If it is any help to hon. Members opposite, I would point out that Sheffield has a large Socialist majority. I have a letter here in which the Sheffield city council oppose very strongly certain suggestions contained in this Bill. These suggestions have already been put by other hon. Members, and all I propose to do is to enumerate them briefly without elaboration. First, under Clauses 18, 19 and 21 there is far too much centralised power taken by Whitehall, and not enough notice taken of local authorities and their experience. It seems, throughout all Socialist legislation of this kind, that the powers of discretion are more and more being taken away from local authorities and handed over to Whitehall. I suggest to the Government that it is best to leave at the lower level such questions as rank, hours, maintenance and discipline, and not to concentrate them on the high Whitehall level.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that the Minister is virtually keeping control in his own hands. On the financial question, it seems illogical to say, as some Members have said, that the powers of the central Government are too large, and that the grant should be increased. If the grant is only 25 per cent., then a great deal more power should be given to the local authorities. On the other hand, if the Minister is prepared to reconsider this matter and give a greater amount of autonomy to the local authorities in comparison to the amount of money which they are asked to pay, then one might easily drop this question of 25 per cent. I do not know what the answer of the Government will be. They must consider very seriously their answer, because upon it will depend the question of voting for or against the Money Resolution. I hope that the other Sheffield Members will add their voices in pressing the Front Bench on this matter. In conclusion, I should like to ask whether any local authorities of big cities and industrial areas approve of the Bill and these two Clauses as they stand.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts), I should like to say a brief word on the disproportion between power and financial responsibility. When my right hon. Friend introduced this Measure, he gave 1st April, 1948, as the appointed day. In view of the nature of his speech, I wonder whether he may have a vesting day ceremony, and if so, what form it will take. Perhaps the Home Secretary will solemnly descend a fire escape, or less solemnly come down a chute. I think, however, the motto for the day should be "The N.F.S. is dead. Long live the N.F.S.," because that is in fact what is happening. The N.F.S. is, in fact, continuing under another name, but I am not at all perturbed about that, because I have felt all along that a national fire service is likely to be more effective than a purely local service. Our wartime experience has shown that. We are up against the fact that this undertaking was given to the local authorities, and that some day or other it has to be implemented. To hand over the power to 1,600 authorities—I think that was the figure mentioned—would be absurd, and so perhaps the county councils and county boroughs are a better choice; but simply to hand over the powers to county councils and county boroughs without making any allowance for the differing sizes and characters of county councils and county boroughs, is making a big mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) referred to county councils and county boroughs which are considerably smaller than many non-county boroughs. There is also this peculiarity as regards the non-county borough I have the honour to represent. The non-county borough of Cambridge is larger in population than the rest of the administrative county, and in fact pays two-thirds of the county rate. It is, however, steadily handing over power after power to the county council which is numerically smaller. The Home Secretary said he was hopeful there might be some form of arrangement made between the county councils and the county district councils, and he did not seem to rule out the possibility of delegation. I hope he will remember the way in which special arrangements have had to be made in regard to Cambridge, both as regards education and police. We are an excepted


district for education, and we had a special Clause to ourselves in the Police Bill as regards our police force. The anomalous position of this borough must be taken into account when the matter of transfer of powers from non-county boroughs to county councils is under consideration.
To anyone who supports the idea of a national fire service, the general provisions of the Bill are welcome. It is desirable that we should have a general standard of equipment throughout the country. At the moment, large resources are being assembled for use in the Fens, and it would be a most absurd situation if all the appliances and hoses were not standardised. The result would be chaos. I welcome this preservation, in essence, of a national fire service, but as the Home Secretary lays down the law in almost every detail I think it is quite illogical of him to make a grant of only 25 per cent. My own borough, at the moment, has a rate of about 20s. in the pound. The 1941 agreed cost of the N.F.S. was just under £3,000, equivalent to about a penny rate. According to the Home Secretary's own figures, that cost is likely to be four or five times as much, and that means a fourpenny rate at least, through the county precept, on top of that rate of 20s. in the pound The fact that there will be increased cost is inevitable. Better pay and shorter hours of work are bound to put up the cost—and no one regrets that—but a large proportion of the increased cost will result from the higher standards—desirable, I admit—laid down by the Home Secretary, and over which the local authorities have no control at all. If the Home Secretary has these full powers, then I think he should accept a much greater measure of financial responsibility.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: We on this side of the House have found the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) most interesting, and most constructive; indeed, it embodied some of the criticisms of the Bill which we have in mind ourselves. This Bill does two things. First, it introduces a new principle of organisation of fire services and, secondly, it carries out a number of tidying-up jobs, such as the improvement of conditions of service and standardisation of equipment.

With the latter I have no quarrel whatever but as regards the general principle of organisation, I feel that transfer to the county authorities will make for unnecessary rigidity. In preparing a paper scheme, it is easy to try to make everything look tidy. It looks as though everything would work better if one allowed fire services to the fire authorities only to the county level. But it is often to be found in large organisations, whether military or civil, that rather less rigidity works better—in other words, that exceptions are often valuable adjuncts to efficient administration.
What the hon. Member for Cambridge said about his town serves to reinforce my point. Exceptions have already been made for Cambridge, as regards police services and education. These exceptions have done no harm to those services, and have done a great deal of good to Cambridge. It is important to realise that these fire services are being transferred to county councils without those councils having asked for them. The services are, in a sense, being thrust upon them, and there has been little opportunity for the efficient non-county borough to put in a plea for retention of their own service. I agree that there must be a reduction in the number of separate fire services from what we had before the war, but many of the smaller authorities did run highly efficient tire services, of which they were justly proud. I am speaking particularly tonight of the fire brigades in the non-county boroughs of Altrincham and Sale. Hon. Members may be interested to know that my constituency consists of these two non-county boroughs. Each had its own fire service. Each town was competitively jealous of its position, and they tended to vie with each other for efficiency. Both are sorry to see their fire services being taken away; they feel that no good can come of it. I regret that in this Bill there is none of the flexibility there ought to be in any new administrative Measure. It ought to be possible to make exceptions where fire services have been efficiently carried out before the war. I think it will be a great pity not to have so much local interest. The hon. Member for Cambridge said that a national fire service ought to be better, or more efficient, than a local service. I do not think that that follows at all—

Mr. Symonds: I spoke from the point of view of a more effective fire service


because of the absence of watertight boundaries.

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful for that explanation. Nevertheless, I think there is a tendency among many people, including Members on both sides of the House, to think that if a thing is big, it will necessarily be more efficient. That does not follow. We are learning by experience dial a large organisation is often more inefficient because of its rigidity. Local interest does not just mean sentimental interest. In this matter, it probably means that the local fire service will be more efficient. The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the intention to retain part-time firemen. I was not clear whether he meant that that would apply to Scotland, only, or to Great Britain as a whole. If he meant to Great Britain as a whole, I am glad that a large body of part-time men will be used. But will potential part-time men be so willing to come forward, if there is not the same local interest as there was before? I do not think that you will get these men into a near national service with anything like the same camaraderie and enthusiasm as that with which part-timers went into local fire services when these were under the control of local authorities.
I would like to say a word or two about the heavy cost of the service. I do not think the cost which is anticipated can be excused altogether by saying that it represents improved conditions for staff, and improved appliances. It seems that a most excessive allowance has been made for extravagance. We ought to know why this service will cost five times as much as it did before the war. While it is good to see the Treasury handing out a little money, it seems that they have given the minimum grant while ensuring that the central Government are retaining maximum control. A hard bargain has been driven, if the matter has been subject to any bargaining at all. It savours much more of being a dictate from Whitehall, and I believe that a much more favourable grant should have been allowed.
There is one small point in the Bill which has not, I think, been covered so far. That is the case of those local authorities which, before the war, ran an ambulance service in conjunction with their fire service. Altrincham is such an example. One garage housed the ambulance and fire engine, and one mainten-

ance man was able to look after the ambulance as well as the fire engine. There was interchangeability of drivers, and the whole thing worked cleanly and efficiently. When the fire engine or ambulance was summoned for an emergency call, the call went through to the same headquarters, with the minimum of delay. I am not sure what the position will be in future, whether the ambulance will be transferred with the fire brigade, or whether it will be retained by the local authority and administered separately.
Finally, I should like to say how pleased I am to hear about the standardisation. I put a Question on the subject to the Home Secretary some time ago and had a most reassuring answer. We must make sure that standardisation does not replace progress, and that is one of the besetting difficulties of our time. I regret, however, to see that there are powers for centralized purchase in Clause 22, and I should be most interested to have an explanation of why this principle, because I do not regard it as a mere Committee point, should have been introduced. It seems to me that centralised purchasing will take still more power from the people on the spot, and may well lead to the wrong type of equipment or only out-of-date equipment, though standardished equipment, being purchased. I think that is a Clause which might very well have been removed, and it is one of those matters of detail to which I cannot give unqualified praise.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Berry: There have been many references to the pledge which was given by the then Home Secretary and various interpretations have been given to it. I have in my hand a letter from one of the parties to that conference, namely, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and that runs:
At that time it was understood that the Fire Service would be returned to local authorities. There has been considerable discussion and controversy as to the words used by the then Home Secretary at that time, but the view of my Association is that whatever words may actually have been employed the Fire Brigade authorities who were brought into conference with the Government prior to the formation of the National Fire Service certainly obtained the impression that after the war the Fire Service would be returned to those local authorities from which it had been taken.
It may be very unfortunate that words were used which are capable of more than one interpretation, but to say that to return the service to local authorities other


than those from whom it was taken is fulfilling the pledge in the eyes of those to whom that pledge was given rather smacks of a casuistry to which we British do not take kindly. I suggest that it will be a very unfortunate day for this country when Ministerial pledges can be misinterpreted and then fulfilled in a way which does not satisfy those to whom they were given. The phrase parole d'Anglais still has some value on the Continent of Europe, and I hope it will long continue to mean a lot to this country.
There is one point which is common to both England and Scotland with which I would like to deal. In the ordinary way I would abstain from dealing with matters affecting Scotland although I do not notice any inclination on the part of Scottish Members to refrain from intervening in English affairs. It is well known that without coal this country would cease to function, and in like manner a fire brigade without water would also cease to function. Here, as in other directions, I notice that the point of view of those who have to administer water undertakings is very largely ignored. They are regarded as the helots of the fire brigade, and are dictated to. We are quite accustomed to that sort of thing from Government Departments, who do not apparently realise the importance of water in the make-up of things. Even when people drink whisky they have to have water—which, of course, is spoiling good water. However, I would like to remind the House that during the London blitzes no less than 100 million gallons of water was used in 24 hours for fire-fighting purposes. That gives some idea of the importance of water in the fire brigade set-up. I notice that there is a total absence of provision for consultations with the water authorities. For instance, by Clause 14, Subsection (6), the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council is to make a regulation providing for uniformity in fire hydrants. I submit that while it is proper to consult the Central Advisory Fire Committee it is also not improper to consult those who have the duty of supplying the water through those hydrants.
That is one example of the imposition of a dictatorship of the fire brigades towards water authorities. We have another example, of it. If there is a fire the senior

fire officer is to be the person to say what street supplies are to be shut off in order to secure the proper pressure of water. It would be right and proper for the senior fire officer to require that the necessary quantity of water, and at the required pressure, should be available for the fire service, but the water engineer knows how to give that a jolly sight better than does any senior fire officer. Here, again, I suggest we have a case for consultation and a little working out of arrangements rather than this attempted dictatorship. I hope that reasonableness and consultations will always prevail. I well remember the Lord President of the Council, when speaking across the water in connection with another matter, saying that he hoped the London County Council would never be too big a body to join in consultations. I hope no Government Department and no fire brigade will ever be too big to consult with other people, at any rate with those on whom they are vitally dependent for supplies.
This is a most important Measure, and we all welcome it, and I hope there may be a combination of efficiency with that local patriotism that some of us admire so much in provincial towns. It is said that if there had been an attempt to deal with Birmingham in the same manner as London has been dealt with there would have been a revolution in the Midlands. Certainly the tragi-comedy of Waterloo Bridge could never have happened in Birmingham. [Interruption.] There is a river there, only it is not one which would warrant the erection of a Waterloo Bridge. Shall I say the Trent at Nottingham? It is most important that we should harness to all our services the local patriotism that is so evident in the provinces. I wish it were more evident in London. I hope this Measure will mean the harnessing of local patriotism in all parts of the country, and that this new Measure will result not only in efficiency but in a well loved fire brigade service, just as the London Fire Brigade Service was loved by Londoners before the war.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It is obvious from the Debate that there is a wide measure of dissatisfaction with some of the provisions of this Bill and that is understandable in view of the fact that the Act of 1938 has had so very


short a trial. It is true that before 1938 the position was unsatisfactory in various ways, but the Act of 1938 defined the position by designating local authorities as fire authorities and placing upon them the obligation to provide efficient fire brigades. In general I think local authorities reacted with enthusiasm to the new duties and powers given to them under that Act. In rural districts particularly there was considerable enthusiasm, which showed itself in the provision of better equipment and better organisation. It is my contention that, in view of these facts, fire-fighting responsibility should now revert to those local authorities under whom it was placed by the Act of 1938.
I say that for three reasons. First, that so far as experience went those local authorities did discharge their duties with skill, efficiency and enthusiasm; secondly, that the very short period of trial of the 1938 Act before the interruption of the war, was altogether insufficient to condemn it as an unsatisfactory arrangement; and thirdly, there was the pledge of the then Home Secretary, now Lord President of the Council, of May, 1941, of which we have heard a good deal today. I agree with the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) that it is a most unsatisfactory thing if pledges are to be explained away in the manner in which the Home Secretary has explained away that pledge this afternoon. If it is a fact that the Lord President of the Council meant by his pledge that fire responsibility should return to county councils and county boroughs, I can only say that he was considerably wanting in frankness in not explaining what was in his mind in 1941, since all those who heard him quite obviously thought that he meant a reversion to the county districts and non-county boroughs. If responsibility cannot go back to those authorities, I think there should clearly be powers expressed in the Bill for the delegation of responsibility by the county councils to the local authorities.
In any event, I consider that the present position, as envisaged by the Bill, is unsatisfactory in certain main respects. First, it will be extremely inconvenient, to the point of inefficiency, in many districts. That applies in my own constituency, as in others. In particular, there is lively apprehension in the urban district of Hoddesdon that they will not achieve proper fire protection under the suggested

system, an apprehension to which I have already given voice in a Question in the House. Secondly, I think the Bill envisages far too much centralisation of detailed control and expenditure. I think the cost will be considerably higher than the prewar cost of fire services, without any guarantee of a corresponding increase in efficiency. Lastly, it is wrong that the transfer of the property vested in the local authorities should be dealt with by regulations subject only to annulment by negative Resolution of the House. I think that a matter of such importance should have been contained in the words of the Statute itself.
The treatment of the local authorities in this Bill seems to me to represent yet one more retreat from the true principles of local government as we have historically developed them in this country. I commented on this in the Debate on the Police Bill and on other occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said that the Home Secretary had taken away more powers from the local authorities than had any other incumbent of his office. I believe it was King Edward I who had the glorious title, as it was then considered, of "The Hammer of the Scots"; but the Home Secretary is likely to have the inglorious title of "The Hammer of Local Government." If he continues to hammer away the rights of the local authorities in this way, he will be doing a very grave disservice to the whole function of local government and the spirit of voluntary service which animates it today.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am glad to have the opportunity at this stage to speak for the smaller local authorities of Lancashire, the non-county boroughs. As I listened to the hon. Members who preceded me speaking of local interest and knowledge, I recalled a picture I once saw in the "New Yorker" which showed a house blazing on the skyline, a fire engine driving rapidly away in the other direction, and the driver of the fire engine turning round to the men and saying, "This is a rather longer way round, but it is much the prettier." That shows the danger inherent in local knowledge. I would not, however, wish to introduce a note of dissent into the general spirit of agreement on the part of hon. Members in all parties


who have disagreed with the Home Secretary on this occasion. I agree with most hon. Members who have spoken that this is, on the whole, a good Bill, that it will make for a more efficient and more comprehensive service, and, one of the most important factors of all, that it will make for better conditions for the men and women in the fire service.
One of the difficulties we have to face is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is so disarming and so accommodating when he comes to address us. In the light of this Debate, I hope he will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and be twice as disarming as he has been in the past, and come away with a 50 per cent. grant instead of the 25 per cent. grant for local authorities which is all that he has been able to offer so far. Like the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), I am one of the hon. Members who would have preferred to have retained the National Fire Service rather than the hybrid organisation we are promised under the new scheme, but I appreciate the difficulty which the Government have to face. What I do not understand, however, is this completely illogical distinction between county boroughs and non-county boroughs. I do not want to go into that matter any more, but I plead with the Government to put first things first, to decide what is to be the structure of local government in our country, and then to decide what are the proper bodies to exercise the functions which the Government allocate to them.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggested that we are asking him to adopt a system which would be less economical of manpower than the one he has placed before us today. In my view, that point was very largely met by the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). In the borough of Radcliffe, one of the boroughs that I represent, there were before the war the fire service and the ambulance service. Because of the large amount of standing-by involved in both types of work, the two services were largely manned by the same personnel. The result was great economy in manpower and considerable economy in money, and I have come across no complaints about the efficiency of that service before the war. The present position is that, under the

National Health Service Act, the county borough is losing the ambulance service, which was split away from the fire service when the National Fire Service was set up. That ambulance service, which in the old days cost £1,100 a year, is now costing £3,700. The fire service, which in the standard year cost less than £1,600, is going to cost about £8,000 under the new scheme. The general effect is that the ratepayers of Radcliffe will be asked to find approximately £10,000 more for these services than before the war.
It is perfectly possible that there will be an increase in efficiency. We have still to learn that from experience, but even if there is, this additional financial burden has to be met. In Radcliffe a penny rate produces £730. If we are to meet this additional burden it means that the rates are to be increased more than is. We recently increased the rates from 16s. to 18s. in the £. We are now facing a situation where the rate burden will be too heavy for working-class districts to bear. I would appeal to my right hon. Friends on the front bench to consider carefully what the future of local government in this country is to be, and to promise, in the near future, a statement on the whole position of local government in genera] and of local government finance in particular. Once again, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of increasing the subsidy from 25 per cent, to 50 per cent.

9.8 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: I listened with great interest and amusement to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), particularly when he asserted that this Bill was a Bill of importance, as it blazes a trail that would be followed increasingly, he thought, over the months and years that lie ahead. This, said the right hon. Gentleman, was the first Bill for the denationalisation of something. This he welcomed and his party would speed up the process when they got the chance. Then we had the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) talking about the Socialist provisions of this Bill, and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) poured scorn on the Bill and complained of the principles which the right hon. Member for North Leeds so readily accepted. I accept the view of the right hon. Member for North


Leeds that this is a Tory Measure. Moreover I understand why he welcomed the Bill with such enthusiasm. It instances the important Tory principle that the cost is to fall on the public purse and all the profit is to go into the pockets of those private interests which so readily find expression from the benches opposite.
I have the honour to sit for the most progressive authority in the Midlands—

Mr. Shurmer: No, it is Birmingham.

Colonel Wigg: The county borough of Dudley, which I have honour to represent, wants an efficient fire coverage, and also, like Birmingham, wants to get it at the least possible cost. Before the war it had an efficient fire service for a twopenny rate. Now it is asked to pay the equivalent of a sevenpenny rate. But what are the consequences of the improved fire coverage? One of the consequences of stepping up the efficiency of the service is that fire insurance companies will pay out much less in settlement of claims than they did in the past, and they did very well before the war. They were making a profit then of £8 million a year and they could very reasonably be asked to pay part of the sum towards the cost of maintaining an efficient fire service.
A Socialist Government might very well be expected to follow the example of New Zealand, and insist on some portion of the premiums, or some portion of the profits, being devoted towards the cost of this service, which directly benefits the companies concerned. Therefore, if the right hon. Member for North Leeds welcomes this as a de-nationalisation Measure, those of us on these benches can say, "Here is an example of what the Tory Party will do if they get a chance. Any industry which we take over will be handed back to private ownership, or organised in such a way as to repeat the principles contained in this Bill." As the Financial Resolution is drafted in such a way that we cannot possibly hope to get a 50 per cent, payment to the local authorities, I very much hope that my right hon. Friends will consult with the New Zealand Government, and see the way their schemes have worked, and that when this Bill is in Committee, will amend it so that the insurance companies shall be required to give up a portion of the profits which has been put into their pockets as a result of public enterprise.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: I was glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) referred to the insurance companies. It is instructive, even at this late hour, to realise that there is a Bill on this precise subject before the New Zealand Parliament. If one examines the provisions in that Bill, one finds that the cost of the new fire service in that Dominion is to be borne to the extent of 50 per cent, by the fire insurance companies, who are generally expected to benefit most from the increased efficiency of the new service, 15 per cent, by the State, and 35 per cent, only by the local authorities. I suggest that there is something wrong with a Bill such as the one we are now considering, which allows the insurance companies to get away with their commutation of their responsibilities by the payment of £600,000, which they made in 1938. We are considering a scheme, which is to cost the country in the region of £8 million, falling most heavily on the ratepayers, while fire insurance companies are to get away with the commutation of £600,000.
I beg my right hon. Friend to consider whether he is satisfied that something cannot be done, even at this comparatively late stage, to prevent the burden from falling so heavily on the local authorities. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know what an immense amount of reconstruction work will fall upon our local authorities. We know what an immensely high rateable average there is in northern and midland cities, and we ask that the burden should fall, at least in some small respect, on those most able to bear it.
Clause 19 deals with the selection of the fire personnel. The local authorities will not have any say at all in the selection of their chiefs and deputy chiefs. The relationship which exists between the fire brigade chief and the local authority is one of peculiar intimacy. All the relationships in local authorities depend very much on how people get on with one another. The Home Secretary already has a panel from which these selections will be made. Would it not be better to send to local authorities, the county boroughs—the fire authorities concerned—a panel of 20 or 30 names and allow the fire authority after interview to make their own personal selection? They could then choose the person


whom they like the most. I feel that the fact that the local authorities are represented indirectly on the advisory council is not sufficient.
In welcoming this Bill, I want to point out that it is not really an expensive Bill. It brings the amount of expenditure on our fire services up to the amount which Sweden and other countries pay per head of the population. Before the war we got away with a very inferior fire service. Our fire damage bill was £12 million per annum. Great cities like Oxford ran a voluntary fire service. We cannot afford to continue that state of affairs any longer. County boroughs, such as my own at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which paid £20,000 before the war for their fire service, will pay £60,000, even with the 25 per cent, grant and if the Minister cannot increase this to 50 per cent., then, in view of the immensely high rates in the county boroughs of the midlands and the north, I ask that the Minister should look at this matter with a view to enabling the fire insurance authorities to play a very much greater part in financing this Measure.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: In moving the Second Reading this afternoon, the Home Secretary commenced his remarks with a very short historical sketch. Amongst other things, he told the story of an art master who was in the middle of his class when he heard the fire bell ring. He dashed out, mounted the fire engine, followed by as many of his students who could get on behind him. That reminds me of an incident which I myself witnessed, and perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I recount it. I was in the country when a chimney fire occurred. A telephone message was sent to the nearest hamlet which had a fire brigade. It turned up very quickly and consisted of a lorry drawing a trailer. In the lorry were the firemen, and in the trailer were the spectators. The chief, armed to the teeth, wearing helmet and carrying hatchet, climbed the roof, poured salt down the chimney and the fire was put out with a surprisingly small mess. All the parties thereafter broached a barrel of beer and the whole occasion was celebrated with great success and good feeling. Although that incident was efficiently dealt with, it is a sort of Pickwickian setup which is amusing to recount but not what we want to see today.
It is obvious from this Debate that upon all sides of the House there are objections to this Bill—not to the principles of the Bill in the main, but upon two important grounds. One is the inadequacy of the proposed grant and the other is that, as the Bill is drawn at present, the fire authorities' are restricted to county and county borough councils. I want to say, without repetition, I hope, a few words on both those points. In justice to the Home Secretary, I do not think it can fairly be said that he has gone back on the pledge of 1941. He has certainly honoured it in the letter but there is very widespread doubt that he has honoured it in the spirit. He will have an opportunity of putting that right during the Committee stage. I think he should consider this point very carefully because if it is widely felt, as it is at present, that he has not honoured the pledge it is, to say the least, a pity.
I do not know exactly what the attitude of the different previous fire authorities may be. Some of them may perhaps be quite ready to hand over a responsibility which they used to have for fire prevention. Others who have never had it may not want it thrust upon them. There are others where the question of local pride and local patriotism, which lead to good and fine service, may very likely be outraged. For both these reasons, I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say in the course of his remarks that he would keep a reasonably open mind upon this question. He doubted whether it could properly be met by delegation. Our view at present, as put forward by my right hen. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), is that an Amendment on Clause 4 in that direction might meet the point, but the right hon. Gentleman may have other ideas. In any case, I welcome the attitude with which he proposed to approach the matter, and I suggest that he leaves, as he did in the case of the Police Act a year ago, a little time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage—since all these opinions have come out—in order to give him and the local authorities time to discuss this question. I therefore hope that we shall not be faced with a very short interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, thereby ruling out the chance of coming to an accommodation before we go to Committee.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member will remember, the case for that interval in regard to the Police Act was the fact that the Second Reading followed very closely on the introduction of the Measure and the local authorities complained that they had not had time to see it. There has been a very long time indeed since the introduction of this Bill and the Second Reading, and, in fact, the negotiations have been going on ever since 1944. There is that difference in the situation relating to the two Bills.

Mr. Grimston: All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself as willing to approach this matter with a reasonably open mind, and I merely throw that out as a suggestion which I hope he will consider.
I now turn to the question of the grant, upon which a great deal has been said during this Debate. We take the view that, having regard to the very large powers which the Secretary of State is taking under Clause 20, the grant is too small. He cannot have it both ways. If he is to take these powers, he must increase the grant, but if he is not going to increase the grant, he will have to clip his powers. There is feeling about this. There will be difficulties about it because of the way the Financial Resolution is drawn. The right hon. Gentleman must take note of the opinion which has been expressed upon all sides on this question—and expressed very strongly—that as things are he is really getting the maximum powers with the minimum of Exchequer contribution.
It is all very well, as he did—he is a past master at getting away with these things—to approach the matter in the way he did in his speech and say, "I have given 25 per cent. They had nothing before, and they are complaining." He cannot get away with it like that. He will have to meet the criticism which has been directed from all sides of the House.

Mr. Shurmer: He is going to run the fire service and we are going to put the fires out.

Mr. Grimston: I am rather staggered at the increased cost which this Bill envisages—five times as much as the fire service cost before the war. I would like to hear something from the Under-Secretary—others have mentioned this—about the extent to which part-time firemen are

to be employed. No word has been said about that yet. I feel there is a danger that too many full-time people may be employed. I can think of towns of decent size where a fire rarely occurs, and it seems absurd in cases of that sort, where in the past they may have run the thing on local patriotism with part-time firemen, that they are to be compelled to have full-time men. Also I am not sure that the estimated cost may not, be run up considerably on that' account. I think it needs looking into, and I would like to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about it. I can remember in my own constituency shortly after the war, when all risk of fire from enemy action was removed, that a number of N.F.S. men were kept on doing nothing for a considerable time. One of them protested to me very strongly. He wanted to get back to his own business. He said, "Here I am sitting about doing nothing, when all the time my own business is crying out for me." If that can happen, as it did then, the same thing can happen under this Bill if it is not closely watched.
I will now say one or two words upon the insurance company point which has been raised. There have been some strictures upon the insurance companies by the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg). In justice to them it must be remembered that it was in fact the insurance companies, as indeed the Home Secretary said, who first produced the fire services, admittedly in their own defence but they were the pioneers. The position here is a little different from that obtaining in the case of motor insurance or workmen's compensation insurance, because of course there is no compulsion upon anybody to insure against fires. It is also true to say that the introduction of this Measure, when it comes into force, will not alter the fire risks themselves—a building which is more liable than another to burn will not be rendered less liable to burn by the existence of this Measure—but the resultant damage up and down the country may very well be less as a result if this really works. That being so, I wonder if the Home Secretary has had any discussions with the insurance companies, because it would seem only fair that one or two things should follow and I have no reason to think that they may not from the insurance companies' own volition—either they will, as they have done


in the past, continue to make some contribution to the fire services, or the premiums of those who insure will fall because of the lessened resultant danger.
I promised the hon. Gentleman to leave him time to reply, and I do not think one can say much more on other points of the Bill, which are mostly Committee points. I have dwelt upon the two main criticisms which have emerged. Last year we had before us a Police Bill, and in many respects that Bill reminds me of this one. To start with it was a non-party Measure and to continue, it was very much improved in Committee. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that in his Third Reading speech. It was much improved by the united efforts of those on this side of the House who criticised it and were prepared to vote against the right hon. Gentleman, coupled with the efforts of those on the other side of the House who also criticised the Measure and who left the right hon. Gentleman in doubt sometimes as to whether they would vote against him or not. The combination of those circumstances turned the ever-present appearance of reasonableness in the right hon. Gentleman into an actuality, with the most pleasing results, that we moulded in the Committee what I believe was a very good Bill. Now from the Debate which we have had today I detect very much the same setup and I hope, therefore, 'that if the Home Secretary has not been bitten by the same bacillus totalitarian as some of his colleagues have been lately, and that we do not have a guillotine, we may do the same with this Bill on the Committee stage. If the Home Secretary will meet the criticisms that have been made, we may succeed in producing a Bill which will not only fulfil the pledge given, but will place on the Statute Book a Measure which will give this country fire services such as it has never enjoyed before.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), in his interesting observations about this Bill, promised the House that he would not oppose the Bill, because he was having the advantage of supporting a Measure of denationalisation, an experience he was not likely to enjoy again for some time. Although there

were features about the Bill which he disliked, the opportunity, coming as it did when nationalisation of other matters is so prevalent, he would restrain on this occasion from opposing the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that he had made objections against it. Unlike those cases, in the case of the fire services a promise was given that when they were nationalised they would be denationalised. In the nationalisation schemes which have taken place recently, no such promise was given. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy in his lifetime an opportunity of denationalising them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait a few months."]
The first question the right hon. Member raised related to Clause 12 when he asked whether
other persons who maintain a fire brigade",
related to individuals, or to some private organisation. The words mean and relate to private fire brigades which, in the main, are maintained by private companies, such as the I.C.I., and other big firms, who find it necessary to have fire brigades for their own purposes. It would not mean that it related to some local authority or some non-county borough who, by reason of this Clause, would be permitted to operate under the Bill. The whole question of Clause 12 is the right of the fire authorities to negotiate with some other authority, or some other body, to maintain a fire brigade to undertake the duty of attending the fire from the beginning of the fire, being solely responsible for offering fire protection in a particular area. That appears to be the interpretation of Clause 12.
The right hon. Member raised the important question of the inadequacy, as he described it, of the grant of 25 per cent, and suggested that it should be 50 per cent, on the basis that 50 per cent, is given by the Government in the case of the police. I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House—because this matter has been raised time and time again during the Debate, to the effect that the amount is inadequate—that there never has been a promise given at any time, that any grant would be made from the Exchequer. No promise was given by the last Home Secretary, although he made some statement to the effect that the fire services


would subsequently go back to the local authorities. That was the decision of the Caretaker Government. He made no promise that there would be any grant at all from the Exchequer for the maintenance, or partial maintenance, of the fire services. It is not quite right to say that these two forces axe comparable. When all is said and done the machinery is rather different, because the cost of a fire service in the main falls under two heads. One, of course, is the amount of remuneration paid to the service personnel, and the other relates to the number of people employed in the Fire Service.
With regard to the payment of the people employed, that is something in which the local authorities will have a direct influence in the machinery which is set up for negotiating remuneration. The machinery contemplated is that used by the joint industrial councils, and the local authority will have representation on a fifty-fifty basis. Therefore, they will have the right to determine and to agree to a figure in any case that may be put before them.

Mr. Shurmer: Who has the last word?

Mr. Oliver: I am coming to that in a moment. That state of affairs does not apply in respect of the police. The negotiations there are between the Home Secretary and the police council and the local authorities have no say in the matter. In the case of the fire services, however, they have a deciding voice.

Mr. Peake: I very much dislike interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but Clause 18 (1) says:
The Secretary of State may make Regulations as to ranks, pay and allowances.
I do not see how with that statement in view the hon. Gentleman can say that the local authorities will have anything whatever to do with the pay of the fire service.

Mr. Oliver: It is quite true that the Home Secretary is the final authority, but it must not be forgotten that if a joint industrial council which is composed of members of a local authority and the fire service on a fifty-fifty basis makes a recommendation, something would be very very wrong if a Home Secretary were not influenced by a decision come to by such a body. Clause 18 (2) says:

Where—

(a) the Secretary of State is satisfied that proper arrangements are in force for the consideration, by persons representing the interests of fire authorities and of persons employed as members of fire brigades maintained in pursuance of this Act, or any class of persons so employed, of questions arising as to the conditions of service of persons so employed or of the class of persons in question, as the case may be; and
(b) a recommendation is made in accordance with the arrangements as to any matter falling within the last foregoing Subsection,

then if the Secretary of State approves the recommendation he may by regulations under this Section give effect thereto.

Mr. Shurmer: Who makes the recommendation?

Mr. Oliver: I think it is reasonably clear that the local authorities would have a direct influence in determining the amount which they would be called upon to pay.

Sir John Mellor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this question of the grant, does he not agree that it is very complex and ought to be debated in Committee, and in those circumstances will not die Government be prepared to substitute a Money Resolution drawn in wider terms so as to permit debate?

Mr. Oliver: Of course, this is a matter which is debatable in Committee because there is a Clause which refers to it, but we are not on the Money Resolution at the present time and it would be inappropriate for me to make reference to it now. I have referred to remuneration in which the authorities have a direct influence.
Now I come to the question of the number of staff employed by local authorities. This is a matter where, as is laid down quite clearly, the Home Secretary would require to discuss the question of efficiency, with the Fire Brigades Advisory Committee. This will be seen from Clause I, which refers specifically to:
the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements.
Again, if hon. Members will look at Subsection (3) of that Clause they will find that it provides that:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Central Fire Brigades


Advisory Council, constituted under this Act, make regulations prescribing standards of efficiency…
There again the local authorities will have representation on the Advisory Committee and it is therefore wrong to suggest that this is comparable to the police grant. I think it is pretty clear that so far as concerns the fire service, the local authorities do play a very considerable part.
The other point which was raised—I think by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—referred to contributions from insurance companies. This matter has been considered from time to time by the Royal Commission and the Riverdale Committee and both bodies reported against contributions from insurance companies. There may be, as I have no doubt there are, very good reasons for that decision. Probably it was a policy upon which no Government would like to embark, and it was not forgotten, naturally, that where there are fires, insurance companies must repair the damage and are not so free from obligations as some of my colleagues behind me would lead us to believe.
The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was in respect of Clause 22 concerning central purchase by the Government. At the present time an agreement has been made for the purpose of examining, among ether things, instances where it would be useful for the Home Office to continue to maintain for a temporary period an organisation for the supply of stores and the repair of pumps and transport on an agency basis for local authorities. It has been thought that the issue of stores and other equipment from the centralised organisation will be found useful, not merely as a temporary measure, but as a permanent measure. Before any final conclusion is arrived at, the local authorities will be taken into consultation and an agreement reached, because a scheme of that kind would obviously not work successfully unless the local authorities agreed to it. The other point raised related to the transfer of property. The property will be transferred to the fire authorities and—

Mr. Peake: Free of charge?

Mr. Oliver: Free of charge. The Regulation will make that quite clear. In the case where a local authority ceases to be

the fire authority, there will be no compensation paid, because taking one thing with another, there will be general equity. That disposes of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds, with the exception of part-time firemen. Part-time firemen are being used, and the rate of remuneration to retain the lowest rank is £12 a year. There k also a fee paid for the occasions when they are called out. There is a higher figure for those with higher responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) referred to the pledge given by the then Home Secretary, and said that the representatives of the authorities who heard the statement thought there was something different from what is obvious from the written word. From the statement which has been made today by the Home Secretary, there can be no doubt what the Home Secretary said on that occasion. It was made crystal clear that it was the intention of the Government of that time, that when the Fire Service was handed back to the local authorities, it would not go back to the authorities from which it came. It is unfortunate that the representatives of the local authorities who heard this statement should have believed something different, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham may rest assured that in the negotiations that have taken place—and they have been long ones—on this Bill, there is no doubt now what the intention was when that statement was made.

Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Member say whether the non-county boroughs were represented in those negotiations, and whether they were satisfied that that is what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman's statement?

Mr. Oliver: Yes, Sir, there has been more than one meeting with the non-county boroughs, and there can be no doubt at all that they are satisfied. It is always difficult to follow a statement and understand its implications when it is first made. But there can be no doubt about it that they know exactly, because it was read to them time and time again. They are satisfied with the statement which was read by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today. My hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) also made reference to the pledge. He said he thought that the local


authorities had been rather deliberately misled. I can assure him that it is too much on record for there to be any doubt about the fact that no promise was given—

Mr. Shurmer: Is it not true to say that while the then Home Secretary meant that there was need for some alteration of the conditions which operated before the services were taken over, cities like Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool were large enough to do the job themselves? We have been misled.

Mr. Oliver: I cannot see how Birmingham, Manchester, and large areas which are county boroughs, are affected by this. There may justifiably be a complaint by the non-county boroughs, but there cannot be a complaint by places like Birmingham—

Mr. Shurmer: We are simply agents for the Government.

Mr. Oliver: Those places are in precisely the position they were in before.

Mr. Shurmer: And we are paying for the privilege.

Mr. Oliver: The hon. Member for Cheltenham also dealt with the omission of non-county boroughs, and thought that the county councils were much too large to administer the fire services successfully, as they had no previous experience. That may be right, but I can only draw attention to the statement made by the Home Secretary today, when he made it clear that while there could be no question of agency, as agency is properly understood, he does not rule out from his consideration the right of the county districts to negotiate with the county councils and the right to discuss this matter with them. I do not suppose that it would be repugnant to the county councils to have the aid of the non-county boroughs, so that they could offer advice to the county councils on the many problems which must arise. By that means it would be easier for the county council and the county to be adequately covered by the experience of people who have already worked the fire services. It is much a better way, in my view, for these discussions to take place than to split up, to segregate, the fire service into small units.

Mr. Benson: Would my hon. Friend say, in more simple language, what he has just said in the last three minutes? It is

important that we should have unequivocal language. It is no use saying that the non-county boroughs will have the right to discuss. That does not mean anything.

Mr. Oliver: If I say, "the right to discuss," there is nothing very equivocal about that. It is discussion I mean; there is nothing ambiguous about that. It is only the right to discuss and negotiate with the county councils. But it would give them an opportunity of making it clear as to the right amount of cover they should have and, by that means, there would be a more satisfactory set-up.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Home Secretary then impress upon the county councils that he expects them to utilise the experience of district councils in drawing up a scheme?

Mr. Oliver: I do not think there was any doubt about that from the statement which my right hon. Friend made this afternoon that there is no cut and dried scheme. This is merely a question that we want to get accommodation for the purpose of making this scheme work well, and it would be contrary to the scheme and to the Bill if the small unit of administration and operation had to come back because the non-county borough is not a unit large enough under the circumstances. The wider the administration the greater the economy and the greater the efficiency. The whole Bill is founded on the larger unit.

Mr. D. Jones: If a non-county borough of 65,000 is not a big enough authority, how can it be justified to make in the case of a county borough which is far smaller?

Mr. Oliver: The answer is rather a simple one, because under the Bill provision is made for a combination scheme, such, for instance, as my hon. Friend has referred to. There is no rigidity about this matter. There are schemes for amalgamation or combination because in some instances it would be found that neither the county borough nor the county might be an efficient unit for the purpose of operating an efficient fire service. Therefore, the Bill is cast expressly for the purpose of meeting the contingency to which reference has been made. If, therefore, the county were the unit and it could not be altered, or if the county borough were the unit and it could not be altered, there would be justification for the observations which have just been made.
The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) asked three questions. On Clause 13 he referred to members of the service who, by reason of the change and the introduction of this Bill, might lose emoluments and asked whether any provision was made in the Bill for meeting that financial obligation. At the moment there is no provision; a provision may be made—if it is to be made at all—by Regulation, but, in any event, that matter can be looked into between now and the Committee stage. With regard to the debt charges on previous capital outlay, at the moment there is not provision made in this Bill. On Clause 29 he asked what proportion of representation local councils have on the Advisory Committee. I am told these representatives will have the proportion of, I think, about one to one. I regret that, although I have been speaking at a very rapid rate, I have not been able to get through one quarter of the points which have been raised as I promised to sit down by two minutes to ten. I ask the House to let us have this Bill tonight because many, if not most of the points can be dealt with in Committee. I think on the discussion which has taken place that there is a unanimous opinion that this is a very good Bill.

Hon. Members.: No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for fire services in Great Britain, to transfer fire-fighting functions from the National Fire Service to brigades maintained by local authorities, to provide for the combination of areas for fire service purposes, to make further provision for pensions and other awards in respect of persons employed in connection with the provision of fire services, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (in this Resolution referred to as "the Act "), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:
A. Of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

(i) in making grants to authorities in respect of expenditure in connection with

the provision of fire services, of amounts not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of such expenditure;
(ii) in the provision of instruction in matters relating to fire services;
(iii) in the provision of equipment for purchase by fire authorities for the discharge of their functions under the Act;
(iv) in giving effect to provisions of the Act relating to pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of service in fire brigades and other service which under the Act is to be reckoned as equivalent to such service, and in making payments to other authorities in respect of liabilities incurred by them for pension purposes, and in the payment of compensation in respect of loss of emoluments or pension;
(v) in defraying expenses of Advisory Councils constituted under the Act;
(vi) in paying remuneration to inspectors, assistant inspectors and other officers appointed under the Act,

and of any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in giving effect to the Act.
B. Of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1946, the enactments relating to the superannuation of persons employed by local authorities, and the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the Act;
and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the Act.—[Mr. Ede.]

Sir John Mellor: I am rather surprised that the Government should have brought forward—
It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Blaydon, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, I932, to the Borough of Bridgwater, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Huddersfield, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 19312, to the Urban District of Ilfracombe, a copy of which Order was presented on 24th March, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — TOBACCO (DOLLAR EXPENDITURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.03 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I want to raise the question of the way in which our loan from the United States is being spent, particularly in relation to expenditure on tobacco in dollar countries. On 28th January, in reply to a Question from me and two hon. Members opposite, the Chancellor gave certain figures, and he told us that between July and December, 1946, £39 million had been spent on tobacco in the United States, which figure amounted to just over 32 per cent. of the total amount in that period expended from the loan. A note was given, however, that, of course, the purchase of tobacco from America is seasonal and that this rate of expenditure might not be the same throughout the whole year. Nevertheless, I suggest that the figures as my right hon. Friend gave them are distinctly alarming. At a time when we ought to be spending—indeed, I thought this was the only reason the loan was taken—dollars for the purchase of goods to create more goods, in other words, machinery, we are spending that amount, and incurring a debt to that extent, in order to purchase a commodity which only goes up in smoke.
A few days later, I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in regard to one particular aspect of the same question, our purchases of tobacco from Turkey, and he told me that we were already buying as much as the market could absorb from that country. I suggest that in these days when the questions of our dollar resources, balance of pay-

ments and general currency difficulties are of the nature which they are, to give a reply of that sort is not satisfactory, because it seems to savour too much of the Manchester school of free trade, that supply and demand are the sole factors which govern the markets and the purchases of the country. I think that in this respect public opinion is possibly in advance of the Government. I saw reported in the "News Chronicle" a day or two ago the figures which have been taken out by the Institute of Public Opinion. A sort of Gallup Poll was taken. In that poll 70 per cent. of the people who were asked considered that the American loan should be expended primarily upon machinery, certainly in preference to expenditure on tobacco or films. Moreover, that percentage of 70 per cent. declared themselves ready to consume less tobacco, if it was a question of that or machinery. Possibly, however, the Board of Trade is more concerned about this matter than the answer to the Question which I put seemed to indicate. I hope that that is so. My object tonight is to ask for information on this matter.
What are the alternative sources? Can we supply our people with tobacco without putting too great a strain upon our dollar resources, or prejudice the purchase of machinery from across the Atlantic? First, to take the Empire, what are the resources upon which we can draw? Can we expand our purchases from that quarter? The Colonial Empire in Africa is now producing a certain amount, particularly Rhodesia. I know there is difficulty in rapid expansion there, because of the labour resources, which are not unlimited. But I understand that it is possible to grow, in Rhodesia, the very same kind of tobacco which is grown in Virginia and the Southern States of the United States, in other words the so-called Orinoco white-stemmed tobacco which makes the famous brands which we get from the United States. They grow in Rhodesia. Possibly, the climate may somewhat affect them and make them not quite so palatable, but there is not a great deal of difference. It is extremely important that we should, as quickly as we can, do all we can to develop this Empire-grown tobacco. If Rhodesia is limited, can my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade give us any indication of any alternative sources within the Colonial Empire?
I pass from that to the countries outside the Empire, but which are nondollar countries and which produce tobacco. The greatest sources of tobacco from countries in that category are, of course, those round the sea-board of the Eastern Mediterranean—Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Egypt. These are countries of no inconsiderable importance to us, and the possibility of doing trade with any of these countries is one which we ought to explore to the full. I know the difficulties so far as tobacco is concerned. Tobacco from those countries does have a certain taste or aroma which our people do not now like. That is only a recent development. I can remember the time when no one smoked anything else but Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes and tobacco. I know that we have acquired, since the first world war, when Turkey was in the war against us, a taste for American tobacco. I know also that tobacco from many of these countries in the Eastern Mediterranean is difficult to collect. It has a small leaf, it is not so easily handled, and it is grown on small farms and smallholdings, not planted out in large plantations. Yet it was from there we used to draw our main reserves.
The other difficulty is that the price is higher. I suggest that at a time like this that should not play a very important role. In order to save dollars, it may be necessary that this higher price, this extra tax, should be paid because our national income, on paper at least, is £1,000 million a year greater than the actual material wealth which we are producing. That might be one of the means by which we deal with inflation. In any case, I do not think that the Chancellor would be much concerned by a small loss through the higher price, if, on the other side, he was able to say that he was spending less of the dollar loan, which to him is a most important consideration.
I suggest that it is better to take action now than to wait until a dollar crisis is upon us. I am certain that we are not in a position to go on spending at the rate of £39 million every six months from this source. I see that in the Economic Survey for 1947 a sum of £50 million is foreshadowed as expenditure on imported tobacco from all countries. I do not know what percentage of that will come from the dollar or non-dollar countries. It

does not appear that there will be much change in that respect for 1947. I admit, of course, that this difficulty in regard to taste and aroma of tobacco from the Eastern Mediterranean does exist, but I know that there are people who are still able to smoke tobacco from this region. If it is put to them that it is a patriotic duty to do so, and that they are saving dollars in the process, I am sure that such a request would meet with a good response.
There are many people who literally cannot smoke this tobacco because it would cause discomfort owing to the fact that they are so used to smoking American tobacco. For them, I suggest that blending would meet the case. Experiments have shown that if 5 per cent. of Turkish or Egyptian tobacco is mixed, it is very difficult to detect the presence of it except in the case of those people who have a very sensitive taste. If a higher percentage is used, there is a slight aroma, but it is a fact that in the United States there are brands of tobacco and cigarettes, such as "Chesterfields" and "Lucky Strikes" which contain up to 15 per cent. of tobacco from other countries and they are very widely smoked.
What is the position in regard to the country where possibly we would do the most business, namely, Turkey? During the war we had a sort of gentleman's agreement that we should mix up to two per cent. of Turkish tobacco in our blends. This was done throughout the war. Also, we have another arrangement with Turkey based on a loan which we gave to that country in 1937. The arrangement is that that loan is being repaid to us gradually—the interest and sinking fund—by our taking so much every year of Turkish tobacco. The gentleman's agreement lapsed at the end of the war, but the credit arrangement with Turkey continues. I understand that there is in bonded store in this country a very large quantity of Turkish tobacco which is not blended. It appears that with the lapsing of this gentleman's agreement the two per cent. blending which went on during the war has stopped. We could very easily go up to five per cent. and still not make any real difference to the effect on the palate of the smoker. I have heard reported in the Turkish Press recently that 12 million cigarettes from that country have been ordered to go to the West. I hope that that is the beginning of a


change in policy which will enable us to do something to meet the demand which, I think, is imperative. I realise, of course, the public taste being what it is, that we cannot take an unlimited amount from this area, but I ask that what we can take we should take to the full. I am not satisfied that that amount is really being taken. After all, we have also to consider our export trade. At the moment there is no great necessity to expand our export trade to the soft currency countries and we ought to try to sell everything we can to the hard currency countries, so the export trade with Turkey is of less consequence perhaps than that with the dollar countries. Nevertheless we ought now to be thinking of building up good will in those countries with a view to export trade with them as soon as we possibly can. It therefore boils down to this. An important contribution can be made to our balance of payments and our dollar resources by adopting the slogan, "Buy Empire tobacco and take as big a percentage of Turkish and Eastern Mediterranean tobacco as is possible in our blends." The public has a right to know what the Government are thinking and prepared to do in this matter.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Secretary for Overseas Trade): In the time I have left I would like to try to answer as many as possible of the points raised by my hon. Friend. In the first place, he would be wrong in thinking, if he does, that we do not regard this subject with some concern. He quoted some figures on the amount of tobacco bought with dollars in the second half of 1946. I should like' to correct the impression which might be obtained from those figures—though I know my hon. Friend is aware of the difficulty in this' connection—the impression that we are importing American tobacco at the rate of £39 million in every six months, that is, about £80 million a year. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the reply which my hon. Friend quoted, there is a heavy seasonal element in the latter part of the year. Our imports from the United States for 1946 amounted not to £78 million or £80 million, but to £55 million, against imports from all sources of £65 million, but against that figure—

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is

correct or not that we have expended 32 per cent. of the dollars up to date on tobacco?

Mr. Wilson: I am just coming to that. Before I deal with that point, I was saying that we can set against that figure of £65 million the re-export of cigarettes and other tobacco manufactures of £18 million. Whereas in the second six months of 1946 it was true that 32 per cent. of dollar expenditure was on tobacco, that was in the period of high seasonal purchases, and the figure for the year as a whole was 25 percent.—which is a very high figure, I agree. However, it would be wrong to think from this that this represents our idea of priorities—tobacco versus the machinery to which my hon. Friend referred.
As I explained to the House on Monday evening, expenditure on such things as machinery, foodstuffs and so on which we would like to be getting in larger quantities and in larger proportions is as low as it has been, not because we have been giving priority to tobacco and films but simply because of the sheer inability to procure machinery in the face of very great domestic competition in the United States.
Taking these very high figures, how can they be reduced? The first idea might be that of restricting overall consumption. In this connection I repeat what the President of the Board of Trade said on 10th March, that the Government have no intention of introducing tobacco rationing, at least for 1947. Another alternative which was stressed by my hon Friend was that of substituting more Turkish or Greek tobacco or, indeed, Rhodesian tobacco, to which he made some reference. It is important to get the figures from these sources of supply in some perspective. Our total requirements of imported tobacco leaf, including, of course; requirements for re-export in manufactured form, are over 300 million lbs. a year. Against this, our imports from Turkey in the immediate prewar years were- only between 500,000 lbs. and 1 million lbs. Last year, 1946, we took 3 million lbs. from Turkey, and it is a fact that, even during the periods of severe shortage of Virginia cigarettes, it has been difficult to persuade people to take the Oriental types and they have, as we all know, gone without cigarettes and have left Oriental cigarettes in the shops.
With regard to the proposal about blending, I started with some strong prejudice in favour of the maximum possible blending of Oriental tobacco. I am fond of American blends of cigarettes myself, and I know a lot of my friends are, though I have many friends who do not like them at all. The question was whether we could follow the American habits in this respect. We have made a number of inquiries into this. The possibility of blending is certainly there; it is possible, but it reduces considerably the output of cigarettes while changing over, and at the present time the difficulty of getting cigarettes manufactured would make that rather a serious thing. It involves extra processes, and I am afraid it would mean having to introduce new machinery into the cigarette factories.
My hon. Friend's figure of 15 per cent. admixture of Oriental tobacco in the American blend is not quite correct; I think it is more true to say, from the kind of brands he was mentioning, that it is between 3 and 5 per cent., and the sweet flavour which he and I like is due not so much to the Oriental tobacco but to the inclusion of a number of other things such as molasses, honey, glycerine, apple juice, sliced apple, and various other things. So far, the inclusion of such substances in cigarettes is forbidden in this country by the adulteration laws, and in any case a number of the things which I have mentioned are not very easily obtainable at present.
My hon. Friend referred to the gentleman's agreement to introduce a 2 per cent. blend of Oriental tobaccos in wartime, and I think it is true to say that the public hardly noticed this. It is true that, as he said, this lapsed at the end of the war, but discussions are now proceeding whereby the tobacco manufacturers are taking over the Government's stocks of Turkish tobacco to which he referred, and they are going to put them into use and restore the wartime proportion of 2 per cent. So, looking at the Oriental tobaccos, I am afraid that in the case of Turkish, at least at present, it is a question of the unwillingness of the public to take even the present figure, which represents only one per cent. of the total tobacco imports. As for the Greek tobacco, we are very keen to have this and in fact we made a special purchase of 10 million lbs. last year, but

I am afraid the Greeks are having the greatest difficulty in delivering even this small amount.
Turning briefly to Rhodesia, there is theoretically more scope for, substituting Rhodesian tobacco than the Oriental tobacco, because the Rhodesian crop amounts at present to about 40 million lbs. a year. We have been considering the question of trying to develop it, and to try to step up our purchases, but there are considerable technical difficulties about this which we are studying all the time. The existing high prices are an inducement to the Rhodesian producers to increase their production, but we have to go rather carefully because the effect of that under present conditions is to reduce food production in that country, which we are greatly anxious to avoid.
The purchases of all these tobaccos, of course, are made by the tobacco manufacturers in this country, they are not made on direct Government account. Rhodesian tobacco enjoys a considerable margin of preference, and therefore manufacturers have every inducement to get all they can, subject to getting reasonable terms as to quality and price, and I think the point of quality wants to be stressed no less than that of price. We are just as concerned as my hon. Friend at the outflow of dollars, and we have great sympathy with the general arguments he put up—they have been much in our minds in recent months. I can assure him that we shall continue to keep the subject under close review and to do everything possible to deal with it, but I am afraid that so long as the public smoke as much as the public is at present smoking—and, as I have said, we are not proposing to introduce rationing—there is a limit to what can be done on the lines which we have been discussing tonight.

Mr. Christopher Shawcross: My hon. Friend referred to re-exports. Are not these largely represented by sales in British ships duty free, and exports to our Armies abroad and so on?

Mr. Wilson: They are partly represented by that. A considerable number are going to N.A.A.F.I. stores abroad and for sale on ships, but by far the larger proportion are going in the form of genuine exports to both, hard currency areas, and soft currency areas.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half past Ten o'Clock.